DRAFT FINAL REPORT

INVESTMENT IN AGRICULTURAL WATER MANAGEMENT IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA: DIAGNOSIS OF TRENDS AND

OPPORTUNITIES

A Collaborative Program

between The New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD),

The African Development Bank (ADB), The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO),

The International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), The International Water Management Institute (IWMI),

and The World Bank (WB)

CASE STUDIES REPORT

Volume 1 – Highlights of Findings of Various Components

Submitted to The African Development Bank

By

The International Water Management Institute November 2004

i

Table of Contents…………………………………………………………...Page LIST OF ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................. ii FOREWORD ...........................................................................................................................iii INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................... 1HOW THE CASE STUDIES WERE CONDUCTED..........................................................…..2 HOW THIS REPORT IS ORGANIZED..............................................................................…...9 KEY FINDINGS AND INITIAL RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CASE STUDIES ............ 9 Planning and Implementation (Morardet, Seshoka, Sally, Merrey and Country Consultants

2004).......................................................................................................................................... 9 Private Sector Study Update ....................................................................................................... 15 Health and Environment Aspects (McCartney, Boelee, Cofie, and Country Consultants 2004)16 Agriculture Water and Livestock Production in sub-Saharan Africa: Case Studies (Peden,

Astatke, Baltenweck, Sonder, Tadesse, Workalemahu, Asrat, Berhe, El Wakeel, Faki, Fadlalla, Notenbaert, and Freeman 2004) ............................................................................ 19

Agricultural Water Investments and Poverty Reduction Impacts in West Africa: Performance of the Treadle Pumps in Ghana and Niger (Kamara, Danso, Mahu, Cofie, Drechsel, and van Koppen 2004) .................................................................................................................. 22

Assessment of Potential Study Update ....................................................................................... 24 Irrigation Costs (Rollin, Sally, Inocencio, and Country Consultants 2004) ............................. 26 Agricultural Water Development for Poverty Reduction in East and Southern Africa

(Peacock 2004)................................................................................................................... 33 REFERENCES..........................................................................................................................39 Annex 1. List of World Bank and African Development Bank Funded Projects used in the Cost Study and Planning and Implementation Components……………………………………….40 Annex 2. 8-9 October 2004 Pretoria Workshop Proceedings and Key Agreements….………43

ii

LIST OF ACRONYMS ADB - African Development Bank AFD - Agence Française de Développement ApproTEC - Appropriate Technology for Enterprise Creation BVPI - Bassin-Versant Périmètre Irrigué CP - Collaborative Program EDF - European Development Fund ESRDF - Ethiopian Social Rehabilitation and Development Fund EW - Enterprise Works FAO - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FERHA - Fonds d’Entretien des Réseaux Hydro-Agricoles FPUs - Food Producing Units HIV/AIDS - Human Immunodeficiency Virus / Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome IFAD - International Fund for Agricultural Development IFPRI - International Food Policy Research Institute ILRI - International Livestock Research Institute IWMI - International Water Management Institute IWRM - Integrated Water Resource Management LUSIP - Lower Usuthu Smallholder Irrigation Project M&E - Monitoring and Evaluation MRFIP - Mara Region Farmers’ Initiative Project MSMEs - Micro, small, medium enterprises NEPAD - New Partnership for Africa’s Development NGO - Non-Government Organization O&M - Operation and Maintenance P&I - Planning and Implementation PIDP - Participatory Irrigation Development Program PHBM - Projet de mise en valeur du Haut Bassin de Mandrare PMU - Project Management Unit PPI - Petit Périmètre Irrigué PPP - Public-Private Partnership PRBM - Projet de Réhabilitation du Périmètre rizicole du bas Mangoky PSP - Private Sector Participation REAP - Kenya Rural Enterprise Agri-Business Promotion Project SSA - sub-Saharan Africa SSIP - Smallscale Irrigation Project USAID - United States Agency of International Development VRES - projet de Valorisation des Ressources en Eau de Surface WATERSIM -World Water and Agricultural Technology, Economics, and Resources

Simulation Model WB - World Bank WG - Collaborative Program Working Group WLD - Water-livestock investment domains WUAs - Water Users Associations

iii

FOREWORD The Collaborative Program on ‘Agricultural Water Investment Strategies in Sub-Saharan Africa: Trends and Opportunities’ carried out the Component Case Studies following completion of the Review of Literature work in fulfillment of the Executing Agency Agreement between IWMI and the African Development Bank (ADB), which is supporting the implementation of four (plus agricultural water and livestock) of the components of the Collaborative Program (CP). The case studies are meant to complement and reinforce the review of literature findings. It must be noted that while work on the case studies was in progress, some extensions of the literature review were carried out to respond to the feedback from partners. The results of these activities will be included in the final component reports. As in past submissions, we include reports and updates on the other (i.e. non-ADB funded) components where possible, to reflect the larger set of activities being implemented under the Program. The main report (Volume 1) highlights the key findings of the components implemented by IWMI and other partners and should not be interpreted as a Synthesis Volume. As agreed with the Collaborative Program partners, the overall synthesis work will begin after completion of the eight component studies in December 2004. Volume 2 contains the full case study reports for the ADB funded components and executive summaries or updates for the non-ADB funded components. Full reports for the latter can be made available upon request from sponsoring partners. In addition to highlighting case study findings, Volume 1 includes the proceedings and key agreements of the 8-9 October 2004 Collaborative Program Workshop held in Pretoria and attended by all study implementers and all the partners expect NEPAD. The NEPAD secretariat expressed regret at their inability to attend but this report and other outputs from the CP will be shared with them. The first day of the workshop was spent on presentations of all CP components which continued until the first part of the second day. Most of the second day was spent on the Synthesis discussions and concluded with the meeting of the Working Group. Among the items agreed in the workshop include: (a) the changes in deadlines for succeeding reports to reflect more realistic time planning; (b) a detailed time plan and process for the production of the final Synthesis Report in June 2005; and (c) the need to incorporate all comments and suggestions on previous reports in the final outputs. As we near the completion of the individual component reports by the end of this year, we look forward to producing a product that will lead to an increased and more effective investments in agricultural water development in Africa. Once again, we would like to thank the African Development Bank for its strong commitment and its support for this work. We also wish to thank our other partners (NEPAD, FAO, IFAD, and World Bank) for their commitment and contributions to bring this effort to fruition.

Douglas J. Merrey Director for Africa International Water Management Institute

iv

INTRODUCTION 1. The objective of the collaborative program on “Investment in Agricultural Water

Management in Sub-Saharan Africa: Diagnosis of Trends and Opportunities” is to identify opportunities for innovative investments in sustainable, cost-effective agricultural water development and management. It is anticipated that this initiative will catalyze more coherent donor and sub-Saharan African governments’ interest in the sector and more investments will be attracted. The specific purpose of the program is to contribute to a better understanding of experience and lessons learned from investment over the past two decades, the trends and future development scenarios, as well as the constraints and realistic opportunities for overcoming them. This collaborative program comprises a compilation and critical reviews of existing literature, as well as limited case studies. This report puts together the key findings of the respective component case studies.

2. The information below shows which of the components carried out case studies:

i. Regional Demand for Products of Irrigated Agriculture, financed and implemented by the FAO – No case studies;

ii. Review of Irrigation Project Planning and Implementation Process, financed by ADB with co-financing by IWMI and implemented by the latter in collaboration with ADB – With case studies;

iii. Constraints and Opportunities for Private Sector Participation in Agricultural Water Development and Management, financed by ADB with co-financing by IWMI and implemented by the latter in collaboration with ADB - No case studies but will expand literature review to respond to all comments and suggestions from the partners;

iv. Agricultural Water Use from a Basin Perspective in sub-Saharan Africa, not funded (therefore no case studies) but will draw on outputs of other IWMI projects which will then be used as additional material for the context of the Synthesis Report;

v. Study on Agricultural Water Development for Poverty Reduction in sub-Saharan Africa, financed by IFAD (9 case studies in Eastern and Southern Africa) and ADB (2 case studies in West Africa) with co-financing by IWMI, and implemented by IFAD and IWMI in collaboration with ADB - Mainly case studies with a synthesis of all findings;

vi. Irrigation Cost Study in sub-Saharan Africa, financed by the World Bank with co-financing by IWMI and implemented by the latter in collaboration with the World Bank - With case studies;

vii. Health and Environmental Aspects, financed by ADB with co-financing by IWMI and implemented by IWMI - With case studies;

viii. Agricultural Water and Livestock, financed by ADB with co-financing by the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) and implemented by the latter in collaboration with the ADB - With case studies;

ix. Assessment of Potential for Improving Agricultural Water Management in sub-Saharan Africa, financed and implemented by IWMI together with the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) through the Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture Program. - No case studies

1

3. An update on the private sector work is reported in this document. The IFAD poverty reduction component completed its nine case studies in eastern and southern Africa and shared a preliminary synthesis of findings. The full case studies are available upon request from IFAD. The ADB-IWMI west Africa poverty case studies will all be completed by end-December 2004, which is the uniform new deadline for full individual component reports of the CP. However, the Ghana case study which was finished earlier, is reported here. Progress on the Nigeria case study has been seriously hampered by a field accident of the key collaborating researcher. The FAO demand study has already a zero draft full report which was shared with the the Working Group (available upon request from the FAO Collaborative Program representative) while the IWMI-IFPRI assessment of potential is still in progress and the status of work is reported in this volume. Nothing is reported on the IWRM–Basin component as this remains unfunded.

HOW THE CASE STUDIES WERE CONDUCTED 4. The case studies highlight findings of country or project-specific studies both with or

without field work which used a combination of rapid appraisals and/or structured survey questionnaires. The case studies include discussions on the case context and setting and highlight specific issues and lessons from past projects, and general lessons which confirm and/or complement the review of literature findings. The case reports from French speaking countries (i.e., Madagascar and Mali) are in French but the key findings are incorporated in the component synthesis in English at the beginning of each chapter in Volume 2 for the ADB funded work.

5. Selection and Justification of Cases. The case studies are meant to complement and fill

the gaps identified in the review of literature. It is interesting to note that a number of findings are confirming and reinforcing the major points that emerged from the review of literature.

6. Annex 1 provides a list of the 18 (highlighted) World Bank and ADB projects reviewed by

the planning and implementation component as well as the over 100 projects from North and sub-Saharan African (SSA) initially analyzed by the cost study component. More will be added to this list with the addition of IFAD-assisted projects. Table 1 lists the projects covered in the case studies of the different components. It will be observed that they span across several sub-regions in SSA and include various types and scales of irrigation projects, as well as donors.

7. In the planning and implementation component, among the gaps that the case studies are

intended to address include: (1) the need to complement World Bank and African Development Bank projects with those funded by bilateral agencies; (2) the need to assess to what extent the new trends in donors’ policies and guidelines are implemented at country level; and (3) the importance of getting the views of stakeholders from national government offices, ministerial departments, implementing agencies, and project management units. The areas of concern had to do with: role of consultants, respective roles of donors and governments, capacities of national staff, availability of management tools, promising local solutions which can be upscaled, the influence of relationships among the various partners of the national irrigation sector on project planning and implementation, and more in-depth analysis of some aspects of the project cycle. The last issue includes the need for improved documentation of project identification. The

2

importance of preparation is widely acknowledged, as is identifying strategies that are most likely to suceed -- whether increasing donors’ involvement or creating capable structures at national and regional levels.

8. The health and environment component highlighted the paucity of quantitative data and

information on the environmental and health impacts of agricultural water development in sub-Saharan Africa for smallholder and informal agricultural water development. This gap is of concern because smallscale irrigation is increasingly being promoted in SSA for various reasons: (a) it provides business opportunities for private entrepreneurs; (b) it generally has low investment and operational costs; (c) it requires much less enterprise and management capability than large formal schemes; and (d) perceived to be less environmentally damaging than large schemes. The extent to which many smallholder schemes are sustainable in the long-term, particularly when they are upscaled, is not known. In view of the above reasons, three case studies were undertaken to obtain and consolidate available information on a range of health and environment issues.

9. The first study comprised an environmental and health assessment of smallholder

irrigation within a type of seasonally saturated wetland (called dambo) in Zambia. This study was undertaken because the water resources provided by wetlands in arid and semi-arid regions make them attractive for small-holder cultivation and there are socio-economic pressures resulting in increased wetland cultivation which may have long-term environmental and health impacts. The second study, on the environmental and health assessment of small reservoirs in Burkina Faso is important because small earth dams are increasingly being used to improve community water resources, both for domestic and agricultural use. The third case study compares the impacts of different agricultural water development projects using selected environmental and social indicators in Ghana. This activity is intended to utilize simple indicators to make comparisons of the impacts of different types of agricultural water development, across a range of scales and including both formal and informal schemes.

10. In the case of the agricultural water and livestock production component, a stratification

of sub-Saharan Africa into water-livestock investment domains (WLD) was developed. WLDs represent the overlay or intersection of cartographic representations of farming system types, physical access to markets, population density and water availability. This stratification forms a framework for identifying opportunities for investments in water development to support livestock sector growth.

11. Making the stratification useful requires limiting the number of WLD classes, and this in

turn requires simplifying the number categories in the input spatial data sets. An expert working group agreed on the following classes for input data: (1) farming systems - a) rainfed agriculture highly dominated by livestock with little or no cropping, b) mixed crop-livestock production in rainfed areas, and c) mixed crop-livestock production in large scale irrigation schemes; (2) market access - a) “good” with distance to market less than 50 km, and b) “bad” with distance greater than 50 km; (3) human population density - a) “high” or greater than 50 people/km2, and “low” with less than 50 people/km2; (4) discretion water availability - a) “high” with more than 300 mm/year equivalence, and “low” with less than 300 mm/year equivalence.

12. Fifteen (15) water investment domains are defined. A number of case studies were then selected to reflect examples of situations where there are critical interactions between water and livestock and where investment can bring about improved livelihoods, poverty

3

reduction, equity, and environmental sustainability. Given the vastness of the African continent its agro-ecological and cultural diversity, a few case studies cannot be statistically representative of the whole. However, many of the lessons from some case studies are applicable to multiple water-livestock development domains. Thus collectively, these case studies offer useful insights into approaches for effective investment in agricultural water for livestock sector growth in all the WLDs. Most of the case studies were conducted in Ethiopia and Sudan, which have the largest numbers of livestock and occupy diverse agro-ecologies. Central Africa was not included because from a livestock perspective this part of SSA is not environmentally suitable for most forms of animal production.

13. For the cost study, the choice of pilot case studies was opportunistic in that IWMI has offices in Ghana and Kenya and we found the African consultants through existing contacts. Also, both countries are of interest to donors for various reasons. The case studies for Mali and Madagascar were aimed at optimising synergies with the IFAD poverty and planning and implementation components doing case studies in Madagascar and the choice of Mali was motivated by the donor interest in knowing the potential for replicating the ‘successful’ projects in this country. IFAD also did case studies in Kenya while the planning and implementation component did one in Mali. These case studies while limited, are intended to provide more insights into the ‘global’ empirical analyses of costs of irrigation projects (in Annex 1 which are not claimed to be representative but determined by availability of project completion and performance audit reports) made possible by data from the World Bank and African Development Bank which will be reported in the final output. Some IFAD projects are also to be added to the present compiled dataset.

14. The IFAD poverty component case studies covered 9 case projects in four countries in eastern and southern Africa. One case study is on the Madagascar Upper Mandrare Basin Development Project (PHBM) which is an irrigation rehabilitation project mainly for rice production. The interest for this case has to do with developing an institutional framework that (a) makes effective use of contracted services from NGOs and private consulting groups for implementation activities as well as (b) ensuring that investment for the production of a relatively low value cash crop can be justified by the poverty reduction impacts. Another case study is the Kenya Rural Enterprise Agri-Business Promotion Project (REAP) which is assisted by CARE and includes the Masaku Ndogo Irrigation Scheme. REAP is based on the development of market linkages for horticultural crop production and has high potential for poverty reduction through agricultural wage employment. The Tanzania Mara Region Farmers’ Initiative Project and Participatory Irrigation Development Program (MRFIP and PIDP) focus on innovative water harvesting technologies (mainly for rice production) and participatory development approaches. The Zimbabwe case studies feature smallscale irrigation schemes and innovative approaches to rainwater harvesting in dry areas, as well as the sustainable use of wetlands. The other case studies include: (a) treadle pump manufacture and distribution supported by Approtec in Kenya and Tanzania; (b) water harvesting research sites in northern Tanzania; and (c) an NGO-assisted market linkage project in Zimbabwe. In all the cases, impact and replicability are the focus of study.

4

Table 1. List of Case Studies by Component Poverty Region/

Country Planning and

Implementation Health and

Environment Livestock

ADB Funded IFAD funded* Cost Study

West Africa Enterprise Works’

treadle pumps –extensive review

Burkina Faso Health and environmental impact

of small reservoirs

Ghana VEA, Lamboya, and Dawhenya formal irrigation schemes; groundwater (shallow well) irrigation system in Keta Basin; Gbirimah rainwater harvesting irrigation; 1 closed-conduit system; Zaguyiri and Mitchel ‘wastewater’ irrigation schemes

Enterprise Works’ treadle pumps –

intensive analysis

Small-Scale Irrigated Agriculture Promotion Project (SSIAPP); Small-Scale Irrigation Development Project (SSIDP); Kpong Irrigation Project; Village Infrastructure Project (VIP)

Mali Projet de Valorisation des Ressources en Eaux de Surface (VRES); Project Pilote de Promotion de l’Irrigation Privée (PPIP); Project d’Appui à la Promotion de l’Irrigation dans le secteur de Maninkoura (PAPIM); Phase II du Projet de Developpement en Zone Lacuste (PDZL)

L'Office du Niger; L'aménagement des bas fonds dans la zone CMDT; Les Petits périmètres avec pompage au projet VRES

5

Nigeria Fadama Irrigation Projects, Phases I & II

Fadama Irrigation Projects

East Africa Ethiopia Doni Kombe SSI Project

(funded by CARE-Ethiopia);

Bato Degaga SSIP (funded by World Vision-Ethiopia);

Wakie Tiyo SSIP/Smallholder Private Initiatives;

Sheled SSIP/(IFAD funded project);

Dodicha SSI/(funded by ESRDF);

Wayu Seriti SSIP/(ESRDF funded Project);

Godino Rehabilitation & Expansion SSI/(Government funded Project)

Koka Dam siltation; Fasciolosis &

irrigation; Wealth Saving in Borana

Plateau; Pastoralists’ emergency Relief;

Water Harvesting & Livestock

Kenya Water for dairying Rural Enterprise Agribusiness

Promotion Project, ApproTEC treadle pumps, Alternative agricultural water

development - water harvesting (3 studies)

Mathina-Ngogithi Irrigation Scheme; Ciambaraga Irrigation Scheme; Lamuria (Ruricho) Irrigation Scheme; Bura Irrigation Scheme; Kiambere Irrigation Scheme; Mitunguu Irrigation Scheme; Kibirigwi Irrigation Scheme

Madagascar Projet de réhabilitation Upper Mandrare Basin Projet PPI Phase 1;

6

des périmètres irrigués Phase 1; Projet de réhabilitation des périmètres irrigués Phase 2; Projet de développement rizicole de Bas Mangoky (PRBM); Projet Haut Bassins de Mandraré phase deux (PHBM) ; Projet Bassin Versant – Périmètre irrigué (BV-PI)

Development Project Projet PPI Phase 2; Projet Haut Bassin de Mandrare Phase 1; Projet d’aménagement de la Tsiribihina

Sudan Gezira large scale irrigation; Rainfed livestock; urban

livestock

Tanzania Mara Region Farmers’ Initiative Project (Mara Bunds); Participatory

Irrigation Development Program; ApproTEC’s

treadle pumps; Alternative agricultural

water development -water harvesting (4

studies)

Southern Africa

Zambia Small scale irrigation project (ADB),

Smallholder Irrigation and Water Use Program

(IFAD)

Use of Katuba and Kabangwe Dambos

and IDE treadle pumps and vegetable

exporting through Agriflora

Zimbabwe Dombolidenje Dam and Irrigation scheme; Smallscale Irrigation

Program –

7

Maunganidze Irrigation Scheme; Mupangwa

and Mataradzi Irrigation Schemes;

Alternative agricultural water development - water harvesting (4

studies) * IFAD carried out nine case studies only but there were projects which were implemented in several countries.

8

HOW THIS REPORT IS ORGANIZED 15. This Volume explains in the sections above how the case studies were chosen and

conducted. More discussions on the field methodologies and justifications of the various case studies implemented are found in the individual component Chapters in Volume 2.

16. The next section gives the highlights of findings and remaining issues, which are also

given at the beginning of each Chapter in Volume 2, starting with those supported directly by the African Development Bank (ADB), and then proceeding with the rest of the components, where relevant.

17. The Proceedings and Key Agreements from the 8-9 October 2004 Pretoria Workshop are

given in Annex 2. KEY FINDINGS OF COMPONENT CASE STUDIES IRRIGATION PROJECT PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS (Morardet, Seshoka, Sally, Merrey and Country Consultants 2004) 18. The objective of the case studies was to supplement the desk review, focusing on recently

implemented, not necessarily completed, projects, to assess to what extent the new trends in donors’ policies and procedures are implemented on the ground, to identify the constraints faced and the innovative ways of overcoming them.

19. Five countries have been selected to conduct field case studies: Mali, Nigeria, Ethiopia,

Madagascar and Zambia. A consultant (or team of consultants) has been hired in each country to conduct a three-part study: (1) a review of available literature on irrigation policy and projects in the country, in particular on planning and implementation processes; (2) lessons from key informants interviews, and (3) analyses of several case projects. Due to the poor quality of the report for Zambia, only the key findings were included and integrated in the synthesis based from the full report.

20. The key informants included different government agencies; local and foreign

contractors/consultants involved in irrigation projects; representatives of main multilateral and bilateral donors in irrigation sector; national research institutes; and NGOs implementing irrigation projects. The questionnaire covers the following issues: (a) description of the specific role of the interviewee in the project cycle; (b) identification of the other actors, with whom the interviewee interacts, personal view on these relationships; (c) identification by the interviewee of the most critical phases of the project cycle, examples of successes and failures of past project in the country, identification of the reasons of these successes and failures and of the actors who are responsible for them; and (d) suggestion for improving P&I process: in funding agencies, at country level, at local level.

21. The analysis of specific project cases was based on an analysis of available project

documents complemented by key informants’ shared information and knowledge to enrich the case analyses. Stakeholders involved in project planning and implementation at local level (project implementation unit, beneficiaries) have been interviewed.

9

An Analysis of Failures and Successes Failures 22. It is worthy to note that findings from the case studies reinforced those in the desk review.

Specifically, the factors contrbuting to failures and successes of the projects which occur at different stages of the project cycle and can be ascribed to various actors (mainly donors and government) were cited.

23. At planning stage, the most often cited failures are the lack of participation of

beneficiaries in identification and design (all countries), and the inadequacy of environmental studies (absence of aquifer studies in some Fadama projects in Nigeria, recurrent problems of erosion in upper catchments and siltation of hydraulic works in Madagascar). The lack of involvement of government agencies in preparation was also mentioned in Mali and Madagascar; related to this is the lack of technical capacities of governmental agencies in Ethiopia. Various weaknesses of preparation studies were highlighted (some non-farmer water users not taken into consideration in the Fadama project in Nigeria leading to conflicts after project completion; contribution of women to agricultural production ignored in Nigeria; not enough attention given to land issues in Mali and Zambia; field constraints not taken into consideration in Madagascar).

24. Some failures are attributed to donors: the rapidity of identification missions (Zambia),

the absence of continuity in priorities and in funding (Mali), some inconsistency between donors priorities and government strategies (Mali).

25 Among governmental failures at implementation stage, the most commonly mentioned

are the lack or inadequacy of a monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system, which is not given enough attention during preparation (Madagascar) and suffers from the poor capacities of technical staff, and the lack of technical capacities at national or local level (Nigeria, Madagascar). Other government flaws range from untimely release of funds (Nigeria, Madagascar), to lack of incentives given to project staff (low salary, no means to undertake activities) (Mali, Madagascar), to delays in awarding contracts (Nigeria), and delays between project approval by donor and ratification at national level (Madagascar). The continuous structural changes in Ethiopian governmental institutions were cited as a major cause of loss of momentum and staff with consequences for project implementation. Political interference was mentioned in procurement procedures (Nigeria), in the choice of schemes to be rehabilitated and in the management of schemes (Madagascar). Donors are criticized for their inadequate supervision (Nigeria), and limited follow up on some aspects imposed in preparation studies (Ethiopia, Mali).

26. Disbursement aspect is another area of concern: procedures are often considered as too

complex with differences from one donor to another (Mali, Madagascar), and the focus on disbursement detrimental to project quality (Madagascar). Irrigation management transfer remains uncompleted in all the countries, especially in Nigeria and Madagascar. The main problem lies in the inadequate capacity building of individual farmers and Water Users Associations (WUAs) in irrigation management, accounting, banking and credit operations (Nigeria, Madagascar, Mali). Finally poor communication among various actors (foreign technical assistants, donors, projects managers, governmental officials in Madagascar, and from PMU to farmers in Zambia) was cited.

27. In all countries, the lack of government (or donor) support after project completion was

highlighted: farmers suffer from difficult access to good quality inputs and credit facilities

10

(Ethiopia, Mali, Zambia), lack of extension services (Ethiopia), and poor access to markets (Nigeria, Zambia). Farmers have developed a high level of dependency syndrome, and they lack entrepreneurship and management skills (Zambia). Another area of concern is the frequent difficulties encountered by WUAs in operation and maintenance (O&M) (Ethiopia, Mali, Madagascar, Nigeria), in particular with water fees collection. Shortages of water were reported in Ethiopia, Mali and Madagascar. They are due to various reasons (insufficient pump capacity, dam silted up, upstream-downstream conflicts) that can be related to design flaws (water availability and pump capacity not assessed properly, environmental issues not taken into account). Related to P&I process is the absence of proper poverty impact assessments (Ethiopia).

Successes 28. In spite of these failures, some successes are also reported:

- Positive impacts at farmer level are underlined: increased income and improved livelihoods (food security, ability to acquire professional and/or personal assets – cattle, transportation means, access to school, better housing...) (Ethiopia, Mali, Zambia in the case of a privately funded project, Nigeria);

- The goals of simplifying drilling technology for shallow tubewells and upgrading of fadama irrigation technology were realized with positive effect on technology adoption (Nigeria).

- Better access to markets is mentioned in few cases: WUA succeeded in implementing a marketing agreement with a vegetable trader in Addis Ababa in the case of Dodicha Small Scale Irrigation Project (SSIP), funded by the Ethiopian Social Rehabilitaion and Development Fund (ESRDF); association between a suger cane company and smallholders in the case of Kaleya scheme in Zambia (see below).

29. Among the country case studies, Mali shows the best results in various areas:

- Improved technical capacities of government organisations; - Enhanced participation of beneficiaries in planning and implementation (example of

Bewani in Office du Niger area, and VRES project funded by the European Union); - Integration of agricultural water developments within local development programs

(decentralisation process); - Good coordination of the different donors’ interventions thanks to a Coordination Unit

within the government (see also the Secrétariat multi-bailleur in Madagascar). - Accompanying decentralisation, government initiatives supported by bilateral donors

(USAID, Netherlands, Germany, Canada) to train local government staff in P&I process;

- Better analysis of local context prior to project proposal, through early meetings between staff in charge of preparation studies and beneficiaries (example of Special Program for Food Security funded by FAO);

- Guidelines on irrigation project preparation elaborated by FAO and WB are used, considered as relevant in the national context and incorporated into the national rural development strategy (Mali).

30. The Kaleya smallholder irrigation company scheme in Zambia (sugar cane project

associating a private sugar cane company and smallholders as outgrowers) is an example of a successful private sector investment: the positive economic impacts on smallholders can be attributed to low market risks, reliable water supply and good maintenance of the scheme ensured by the company, prompt provision of inputs, and empowerment of farmers through their association, which is in the process of becoming a trust with shares

11

in the sugar company. However, the role of planning and implementation processes in this succes is not clear.

Comparison of Approaches of Various Donors 31. Only in the Madagascar study was there an explicit comparison of approaches by the

various donors. For instance, while project identification can be quickly done by the donor (as in AFD and EDF projects) relative to the government (as in World Bank, ADB, and IFAD projects), donor proposed projects often do not have the full support and commitment of government agencies partly due to lack of project ownership. When the donor and government jointly identify a project, the process is rapid with good ownership from government, but can suffer from a low capacity to adapt to a new orientation.

32. The WB process in PPI projects differs from ADB (PRBM) and IFAD (PHBM) processes

on: (i) the involvement of beneficiaries during preparation (absent in the WB project), (ii) the participation of government in appraisal (absent in WB project), and (iii) the composition of the implementing agencies (government staff in WB project, autonomous Project Management Unit – PMU - in ADB and IFAD projects).

33. In terms of funds release, the flexibility of IFAD funding is appreciated because it helps

national and local governmental institutions with limited financial means to undertake on time some activities (acceptance of work done, regional planning, set up of a project advising committee…). On the other hand, the rigidity of EDF funding with its compulsory amendments, and the slowness of ADB lending process due to the absence of a Bank representative in the country are stressed.

Evolution of Planning and Implementation Processes 34. If improving, the quality of preparation studies is still insufficient on environmental,

social and economic aspects. Some aspects of preparation studies were undertaken to comply with donors’ requirements, but were not given enough attention and suffered from limited follow up during implementation. Marketing issues are completely absent from preparation studies. Impact assessment on poverty cannot be done due to lack of baseline analysis in preparation studies. However, the most recent projects show signs of improvement regarding environmental aspects (systematic aquifer assessment in Fadama II, catchment-irrigated scheme approach in Madagascar).

35. The participation of beneficiaries remains very poor, even non-existent, in the planning

phase, and is often limited to provision of labor and local material during implementation. However, in each country one or two examples of good farmers participation are also mentioned.

36. Even if almost all projects include establishing a formal WUA, the process of irrigation management transfer is not completed: WUAs encounter problems to recover irrigation fees, access credit and repay loans, complete outstanding maintenance and provide farmers with adequate agricultural inputs. In terms of WUAs empowerment, one mentioned the creation of a special fund for the maintenance of irrigation and drainage networks in Madagascar (FERHA), and the long lasting support (20 years) provided by AFD to WUAs in the Lac Alaotra region.

37. Lack of proper monitoring and evaluation system has been cited as a persistent major flaw

in all country case studies. The main problems related to M&E are as follows: high variability of performance indicators across projects, lack of capacities of government and

12

project staff in M&E (Mali), inadequacy of economic indicators (Madagascar), disbursement rate being the main performance criteria used by donors (Madagascar), project staff not giving proper attention to M&E (Madagascar, Ethiopia), lack of poverty reduction impact assessment (Fadama I project, Nigeria).

38. In Mali, reform of the P&I process accompanies political decentralisation: implementation

by an autonomous PMU, with specifically recruited staff; integration of irrigation projects within rural development programs developed by local government, post-implementation monitoring and support realised by regional or local technical offices. A generalization of projects funded by several better coordinated donors and the systematisation of pilot phases are also observed.

39. In Madagascar, recent projects are characterised by a more integrated approach in terms of

development (plateforme riz) and environment (catchment approach), better coordination of various donors’ interventions (secrétariat multi-bailleurs, Task force BV PI), and increasing participation of the government in project preparation. Participatory processes are generalised at all levels: from the formulation of the new irrigation policy to the involvement of farmers in project formulation and design.

Point of View of Local Actors 40. Failures and successes cited by local actors do not differ from those mentioned in project

documents or expressed by donor staff and reported in the desk review report. Of course, each category of actors has a tendency to point out others’ faults, i.e., government officials and project managers complain about slow and complex donors’ procedures to release funds, poor support and communication during implementation, fluctuating priorities, and focus on disbursement achievements rather than on development effectiveness; and donors representatives point to political interference in the choice of project staff and in procurement process, and lack of logistic and financial means of governmental agencies.

41. However, in some countries, local actors acknowledge their own weaknesses: lack of

capacities and of financial means, lack of communication between ministerial departments, and between ministerial department and autonomous PMU, lack of motivation of government staff.

42. Farmers seem to be more interested in project achievement and post implementation

constraints then in P&I processes, on which they did not express any view, perhaps because they were not involved.

Recommendations 43. Based on the country findings, Mali’s concerns are on ways to enhance the performance

of implementing agencies and increase communication among stakeholders while Ethiopia’s felt need is related to providing support to farmers after project completion. In Zambia, the focus is on participation of farmers at various stages of the project cycle.

44. Support to implementing agencies:

- Training of implementing agencies’ staff in monitoring and evaluation and harmonization of M&E procedures across donors and projects (Mali); training of local technicians in project proposal writing (Zambia)

13

- Setting national staff capacity building activities as a separate program, not included as part of investment projects; better planning of project staff training and better control of training quality; strengthening of local government staff capacities (Mali)

- Favoring the use of national and local capacities (Mali); - Using performance-related bonus and housing allowances to motivate skilled

government staff in charge of project management (Mali) 45. Support to farmers and WUAs

- Supporting farmers’ organizations and individual farmers’ capacity building (Mali) - Markets: providing farmers with market information and access to storage facilities;

encouraging investments in processing plants using the farmers as outgrowers; improving rural transport systems; undertaking detailed market studies as part of project preparation; facilitating marketing arrangements between WUAs and cooperative unions (Ethiopia)

- Extension support: government assigning well trained development agents to irrigation schemes (Ethiopia)

- Operation and maintenance: increasing attention given to O&M during planning; clearly defining the roles of the various actors in this regard; preparing O&M manuals as part of the planning and implementation process (Ethiopia)

- Access to credit: including support for credit facilities in the project proposal to help farmers to cover the costs of their various inputs (Ethiopia)

- Training of beneficiaries in leadership and entrepreneurship (Zambia) - Supporting farmers throughout the project’s life (and even after) (Zambia) - Diversifying monitoring criteria of WUA performance (Madagascar) - Extending support to WUAs (Madagascar).

46. Farmers’ participation - Irrigation scheme designers and planners should learn farmers’ perceptions and

rationale about things like scheme layout, water application, etc. particularly in rehabilitation of traditional schemes. The WUAs should have direct participation in construction planning, management and supervision in order to ensure sustainability (Ethiopia).

- More careful situation analysis of the local context at identification and in-depth community needs assessment are recommended; identification report issued at the end of this phase should be reviewed by all stakeholders including farmers (Zambia).

- Project proposal reviewed by all stakeholders including farmers (Zambia) 47. Donors and government

- Better coordination of donors, continuity in funding and priorities, simplifications of disbursement procedures; strengthening of supervision (Mali)

- Closer collaboration between donors’ staff and national and local project staff during various phases of project cycle, above all during implementation (institution of mutual confidence, quicker problem solving); implementation of a framework for dialogue between donors, national staff and beneficiaries (Mali)

- Providing timely required logistic at implementation, including disbursement (Zambia)

- Project documents made available to the public (Zambia).

14

48. Private sector - Support to private investments, especially in micro-schemes and in area with gravity

irrigation (Mali) - Creating a favorable environment for encouraging emerging local contractors to get

involved in construction activities and for their participation in bids and assisting them to obtain useful experience (Ethiopia).

Conclusion 49. In the next step towards the final Planning and Implementation component report,

findings from the literature review and the case studies will be combined. A more systematic comparison of the successes and failures pointed by both literature and case studies will be undertaken allowing prioritization of problems and comparison of successes and failures according to the scale of irrigation development. The relationship between project cycle and elaboration of country strategy and policy dialogue will also be analyzed. Lastly, the challenges of aligning P&I process with the new development architecture will be examined.

PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION COMPONENT UPDATE (Penning de Vries, Inocencio, Sally 2004)50. The Private sector component intended to do three activities following the review of

literature: (1) continued desk research, (2) supportive field research and (3) field-testing recommendations. Of these three, activities (1) and (3) are expected to take an equal amount of time, while (2) will probably be smaller. This plan deviates from the Inception Report in which ‘field research’ is to be given great importance. Based on the review of literature findings with large amounts of observations and reports that have already been written, we suggested that this is the most cost-effective way forward. The extension of the literature review covers: (a) micro-finance focused on ‘water’ with more on equipment leasing and targetting of women/micro-entreprenuers and remaining constraints such as need to improve quality of business plans, etc.; (b) the expanded objective which will include ways to promote private sector participation in agricultural water use for poverty reduction, food security, economic growth in environmentally sustainable manner; (c) HIV/AIDS; (d) the option of introducing change as part of disaster relief; (e) agribusiness, contract farming, transport and marketing, peri-urban smallholders and the growing food markets in cities and the increasing importance of domestic markets in Africa, and link to poverty reduction, i.e., in terms of employment; and (f) experiences with micro, small, medium enterprises (MSMEs) in Asia and lessons for Africa. Outputs from these activities will be incorporated in the full component report in December. The second and third activities are to be accomplished in the the next two months through workshops which will identify experiences and ‘best practices’ with respect to upscaling and at the same time test overall recommendations with potential end users.

51. The team will respond to the points raised in the recent workshop and comments from the study working group through: (a) the extension of work to apply the recommendations in the matrix to specific issues for the Banks; (b) improvement of the component summary to better reflect contents of the full report; and (c) suggestion for private sector participation/public-private partnership (PSP/PPP) research which will examine the incentives for various forms of partnerships/participation will be kept in a separate chapter in the final report. The section on public private partnerships in Madagascar in small

15

irrigation projects (including small investments on single farms) and in large systems where lowland and upland cropping is practiced, from the Madagascar experiences.

52. For the applications of the matrix of recommendations into specific questions of the WB,

the team will select sets of recommendations from the matrix that address specifically how to develop the private sector in order to address the following key issues that the sector is facing: "(1) input supply, especially for fertilizes, selected seeds, (2) marketing and agribusiness, (3) extension research (as a result of so many public failures), (4) irrigation infrastructure by PPP: construction and rehabilitation; operation and maintenance" (key issues from Annex 2 raised by S. Darghouth).

EVALUATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH IMPACTS OF INFORMAL AGRICULTURAL WATER DEVELOPMENT IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA (McCartney, Boelee, Cofie, Country Consultants 2004) 53. The Review of Literature for this component highlighted the paucity of quantitative data

and information on the environmental and health impacts of agricultural water development in sub-Saharan Africa. This was particularly true for smallholder and informal agricultural water development.

54. The limited availability of information on environmental and health implications of

smallholder irrigation is of concern, because small-scale irrigation is increasingly being promoted in sub-Saharan Africa for the following reasons:

• it provides business opportunities for private entrepreneurs • it generally has low investment and operational costs • it requires much less enterprise and management capability than large formal schemes

55. Furthermore, they are widely perceived to be less environmentally damaging than large

schemes. However, with only limited quantitative data available it is not possible to scientifically substantiate this perception. The extent to which many smallholder schemes are sustainable in the long-term, particularly when they are up-scaled, is not known. Because of the importance of this issue for agricultural water development in sub-Saharan Africa, three case studies were undertaken to obtain and consolidate available information on a range of health and environment issues.

56. The first study comprised an environmental and health assessment of smallholder

irrigation within a type of seasonally saturated wetland (called dambo) in Zambia. This study was undertaken because the water resources provided by wetlands in arid and semi-arid regions make them attractive for smallholder cultivation and there are socio-economic pressures resulting in increased wetland cultivation throughout much of sub-Saharan Africa. However, wetlands are relatively fragile ecosystems and the long-term environmental and health impacts of wetland utilization are not well documented.

57. The second study comprised an environmental and health assessment of small reservoirs

in Burkina Faso. This study was considered important because small earth dams are increasingly being used to improve community water resources, both for domestic and agricultural use. However, the environmental and health impacts resulting from this water storage are not well researched.

16

58. The third study comprised a comparison of the impacts of different agricultural water

development projects using selected environmental and social indicators in Ghana. The intention of this project was to utilize simple indicators to make comparisons of the impacts of different types of agricultural water development, across a range of scales and including both formal and informal schemes.

59. Generic findings arising from all case studies

• Contrary to many peoples’ perceptions, small-scale agricultural water development can have adverse environmental and health impacts. Currently these impacts are widely disregarded and there is a general lack of interest in these issues.

• Present policies and legislation generally fail to provide sufficient environmental

safeguards. Most smallholder activities, including those promoted by many NGOs, by-pass strategies intended to protect the environment.

• There is a general lack of quantitative, and particularly site-specific, data that can be

used to assist in the development of policies and management strategies to minimise adverse impacts.

• It is difficult to see how current practices for environmental protection can be

modified to encompass smallholder activities, in a way that is pragmatic and economically viable. Realistically, the only policies that will succeed are those that build local understanding and capacity and encourage self-regulating and self-enforcing incentives for improved environmental and health management.

60. Specific findings from Zambia’s Case Study

• Throughout Zambia, there is an upward trend in the use of dambos for agricultural activities. There are a number of socio-economic and natural drivers causing this change, but key among them are the recently liberalized macro-economic conditions and the frequent occurrence of drought in past years.

• There is no evidence of widespread over-exploitation of dambos and the general

perception among smallholder farmers in Zambia is that they have utilized dambos sustainably for several decades. Nonetheless, there is evidence of adverse environmental impacts arising from irrigation within dambos. These include: drying of water courses, increased sedimentation, declining soil fertility, salinization, reduction of natural vegetation cover and increased prevalence of pests (e.g. nematodes).

• There is no doubt that environmental changes resulting from agricultural use impact the

health of communities utilizing dambos. However, these are difficult to isolate from the numerous other factors affecting the health of communities. One area of potential risk is through exposure to agro-chemicals. To date there are no records of direct health problems arising from use of agro-chemicals in dambos, but it is also the case that no research has been conducted. There is evidence of linkages, arising through the marketing of produce grown in dambos, between HIV-AIDS and smallholder dambo utilization. However, further research is required to substantiate these findings.

17

• Institutionally, the capacity of government departments to deal effectively with dambo-cultivation issues in Zambia is limited. There is need for collaboration with local and international experts and NGOs to effectively deal with the task of developing and disseminating technologies for sustainable utilization of dambos.

61. Specific findings from Burkina Faso’s Case Study

• In many places, the creation of small reservoirs in Burkina Faso has resulted in increased household income through productive agricultural activities upstream and downstream of the dam. However, in almost all cases no preventive measures were taken to ensure that the small reservoirs do not have adverse environmental and health impacts.

• Significant environmental degradation can occur in the vicinity of small dams as result of

increased pressure from people and livestock arising as a direct result of improved water resources. Pollution and sedimentation of small reservoirs can occur as a consequence of inappropriate land-use practices and poor catchment management.

• The water related diseases most directly linked to the construction of small dams are

schistosomiasis and malaria. The few field studies on health impacts of small dams suggest that transmission of both schistosomiasis and malaria may increase around the small dams.

• Knowledge of water related diseases, including causes and avoidance measures, is low in

Burkina Faso. Public awareness campaigns are necessary to explain to communities the possible impacts of dams and irrigated agriculture on their health. This should be done even before the promotion of preventive and curative measures against the water-related diseases. Alternative water sources for domestic supply should be developed if possible.

• The reduction of the negative impacts of small dams on the environment and public

health requires an integrated approach that specifically identifies the enhancing and limiting factors that influence environmental impacts and the transmission of diseases in the dam environment. It is only from a good knowledge of the risks that effective environmental management and disease control programs can be developed in a way that fits with regional strategies for poverty eradication and sustainable development.

62. Specific findings from Ghana’s Case study

• In Ghana, the livelihoods of farmers utilizing both formal and informal irrigation schemes had improved. In this study, 63% asserted they were financially better off and 37% stated that they had used profits derived from irrigation to educate their children.

• Environmental and health assessments were not conducted prior to the implementation

of any of the formal or informal schemes surveyed. Furthermore, in none of the schemes are there on-going programmes of environmental and health monitoring.

• There is a lack of knowledge on the part of the farmers, particularly with respect to

potential environmental impacts on areas downstream of the development and the potential damage to wildlife habitats. In most schemes the farmers are concerned primarily with pest and weed management and soil fertility problems, since these have direct impacts on their livelihoods.

18

• There were insufficient data to isolate the health impacts of individual schemes.

However, many farmers attributed improvements in health status to improved food security, reduced malnutrition and increased ability to purchase medical care. Increased prevalence of malaria was the most commonly acknowledged negative impact attributed to irrigation. In the formal schemes increased schistosomiasis was commonly thought to have arisen as a result of the creation of snail habitat.

• Currently capacity building is not a component of even formal agricultural water

development projects. There is need for much greater training of farmers, on both formal and informal irrigation schemes, to raise awareness of environmental and health issues and potential mitigation measures.

AGRICULURAL WATER AND LIVESTOCK (Peden, Astatke, Baltenweck, Sonder, Tadesse, Workalemahu, Asrat, Berhe, El Wakeel, H. Faki, B. Fadlalla, Notenbaert, and Freeman 2004)

63. Water-livestock investment domains Fifteen water-livestock investment domains (WLD) were derived from Africa-wide public domain spatial databases. These take into account much of the great diversity of animal production systems involving many species (camel, cattle, equines, goats, and sheep, (but excluding poultry and swine), market access, human population densities, and a measure of discretionary surplus water supply that could be used for irrigation. Because of the widely varying agro-ecology, rich human cultures, and related animal keeping practice and purposes, the WLDs provide a broad-brush overview of the continent and relevant key water-livestock investment issues. These WLDs highlight areas in Africa where production system specific opportunities exist for investing in agricultural water to promote livestock sector growth. On a case-by-case basis, specific water development projects will need more detailed studies at the planning stage. Nine case studies were selected, mostly from Ethiopia and Sudan, the two African countries that have the most domestic animals and representative the range of agricultural production systems found in SSA. Collectively, they highlight water-related livestock production issues that require the attention of water policy makers who are intent on maximizing their impact in contributing to poverty reduction. They also address observed important issues of particular importance to the fifteen WLDs.

64. Planning for livestock in irrigation systems

Two case studies focused on large-scale irrigation (Gezira) and micro-dam based irrigation (Tigray). They indicate that little or no thought had been given to the inclusion of livestock production options as a productive and marketable output of investments. The did not adequately consider water requirements of livestock kept in and around irrigation systems for non-productive purposes such as farm power, household nutrition and household assets savings. Establishment of new irrigation systems will affect livestock keepers because they lose traditional access to watering points and dry season grazing reserves. Pastoralist may also view irrigation development as an opportunity for a new source of free drinking water for their animals. Although animal feed can have high market value in distant markets as well as support local livestock production, there is little evidence that the “fodder option” was considered in planning irrigation development. For these reasons, past investments in irrigation may have lost opportunities to enhance animal-based agricultural production.

19

65. Livestock drinking and irrigation

Irrigation development tends to take place in areas where water scarcity also constrains livestock access to drinking water. Irrigation development may cut animals off from access to traditional drinking areas. Although irrigation systems supply water to farmers, it is surprising that domestic animals often must travel significant distances to find drinking water or must enter reservoirs and canals where they damage irrigation infrastructure. This study suggests that farmers could realize enhanced livelihoods through integration of livestock drinking water into overall irrigation planning and design. There are two additional benefits to providing drinking water. First, provision of water on a continuous basis increases individual animals’ milk production and thus production of an important highly valued marketable product that also enhances household nutrition. Such dairy production has become an important poverty reduction strategy in Kenya and could do so elsewhere in association with irrigation development. Second, provision of livestock drinking water in irrigation systems enables irrigation farmers to increase animal production in adjacent rainfed pasture that lacks drinking water. Including drinking facilities may help improve overall investment returns where livestock are or could become important.

66. Livestock health and irrigation

Fasciolosis, an economically important water-borne livestock disease, will likely increase as a result of investments in agricultural water in semi-arid areas including livestock dominated WLDs that previously experienced low prevalence. Irrigation policy may need to consider complementary curative and preventative approaches including provision of veterinary services and irrigation designs that help break the life cycle of the parasite and its vectors. Reducing other human and animal diseases may require similar action. The poverty-reducing and market-enhancing outcome of such actions will likely be increased water productivity for livestock, improved quality of animal products that command higher market value, and higher overall return on investments in agricultural water.

67. Livestock management to reduce degradation of irrigation systems

In large-scale and small-scale irrigation systems, sedimentation results in high maintenance costs, reduced water quality and a shortened lifespan of the infrastructure. Improved livestock management can help reduce these costs of irrigation. Three basic approaches could be integrated into agricultural water development. First, providing watering points that are isolated from the reservoir can reduce the transmission of water-borne diseases such a cryptosporidium and coliform bacteria. Second, establishing riparian vegetative buffer zones that exclude animals can help filter out sediments and pathogens (particularly parasites) to help maintain water quality and reduce siltation. Third, better management of the upper catchments can help reverse the trend toward increasing rates of infilling irrigation canals and reservoirs with sediment. These interventions require collaboration between irrigation personnel and institutions with those responsible for up-slope land and animal management. This issue is not confined to animal management, and improved annual cropping practices are needed.

68. A holistic approach to water harvesting

Water harvesting with micro-dams involves concentrating rainfall into command areas equivalent to about 10% of the catchment. Irrigation development and planning often pays insufficient attention to management of catchment areas apart from excluding its use by local people. In the short run, such exclusion proved beneficial, but in the long-run,

20

controlled use of catchments located upslope from riparian buffer zones could produce additional livelihood generating benefits such as production of firewood and feed for zero-grazed animals. Investments in micro-dam based irrigation could realize improved overall performance through holistic planning that integrates management of the catchment, reservoir and command areas.

69. Market opportunities for livestock produced in irrigation systems

Demand for livestock products is growing quickly particularly near expanding urban population centers. These are located in highly varied livestock production systems and where there are favorable incentives for investing in agricultural water. Demand driving profitable irrigation development will likely coincide with opportunities for marketing highly valued livestock products in SSA. Investors and producers have a range of irrigation options to support livestock sector growth. First, if prices are high, production of feed using either harvested irrigated forage crops or irrigated pasture may be a good choice. Second, farmers can grow dual-purpose food-feed crops such as sorghum or maize that provide both feed for animals and food for people. Third, with restraints to prevent overgrazing, animals can graze on fallows and in adjacent non-irrigated pasture. On a case-by-case basis, assessments are needed to determine which combination of crop and feed options are most profitable and useful in meeting household needs. Assuming that animal production is viable, then a range of complementary policies and strategies are needed. These include provision veterinary services and institutions to support market development. As already noted, dairy production can be very profitable to poor smallholder farmers who have good market access. To maximize milk production, provision of continuous water supply to cows may give a very high return on investment.

70. Livestock and irrigation systems – conflict and its resolution

Irrigation systems are often established in some of sub-Saharan Africa’s (SSA) most water stressed areas that traditionally have supported livestock dominated agricultural production. Pastoralists as a group include some of Africa’s most impoverished peoples. Inadequate consideration of pastoral livelihood needs has led to reduced access to water resources and aggravated their already extreme poverty. Much conflict among peoples in Africa centers on the competition between pastoralists and immigrant crop producers particularly in dry season grazing reserves. To minimize such conflict, investments in irrigation development may need to consider a range of options such as: - Providing alternate drinking water in water scarce rangelands that produce surplus

animal feed. - Providing migration corridors to enable livestock to reach well designed watering

points in or near irrigation schemes. - Providing feed from fallow, dual-purpose food-feed crops or forage crops grown in

irrigation schemes. - Encouraging the planting of succulent forage plants and fodder trees in rangelands that

can be used in dry seasons and drought and relieve pressure on irrigated areas. - Providing innovative and socially acceptable asset savings institutions that encourage

pastoralists to de-stock to levels that make them more resilient to the onset of drought and less dependent on feed and water from irrigation schemes.

- Sensitive encouragement and capacity building to promote socially acceptable and environmentally sustainable shifts from nomadic livelihoods to adoption of agro-pastoral production where herders can directly benefit from investments in irrigation rather than being marginalized by them.

21

71. Capacity building and institutional reform In all case studies, there was a chasm-size gap between livestock management and water management policy and practices resulting in much incoherence and conflict between water users and marginalization of minority or economically disadvantage groups. Professional personnel have, by and large, never been trained to think about joint management of water and livestock resources. Most of the case studies indicate that community involvement in planning and managing water, land and animal resources has been greatly lacking. At regional and national levels, there was little integration of livestock and water development. Investments in irrigation development could benefit greatly from multi-sectoral approaches to coherent and joint management of natural resources and training of professional, extension and community level personnel to adopt multi-sectoral thinking.

72. Interdependence of irrigation and other livestock production systems

Livestock migrate, often spending time both in irrigations systems (or depending on feed produced within them) and in other agricultural production systems. This creates a market chain linking pastoral, mixed crop-livestock, urban grazing systems. To maximize return from investments in water for livestock sector growth, complementary investments in livestock development in non-irrigated areas are needed.

73. Supply-side versus demand-side management

Investment in water for livestock sector growth can often “piggy-back” cost-effectively on investments being made in irrigation. For example, providing a continuous supply of drinking water to dairy cattle can generate high returns on investment without using much additional water. Investments in irrigated water solely for feed may be justified if prices for animal products are high, but this strategy may require excessive and unsustainable amounts of water. Demand side management of water for livestock production may also provide great savings using innovations such as dual-purpose food-feed crops, conservation tillage and better management of livestock around water resources.

AGRICULTURAL WATER INVESTMENTS AND POVERTY REDUCTION IMPACTS IN WEST AFRICA: PERFORMANCE OF THE TREADLE PUMPS IN GHANA AND NIGER (Kamara, Danso, Mahu, Cofie, Drechsel, and van Koppen 2004) 74. Low cost irrigation technologies like the SOKA Pump in Ghana and the Niyya da Kokari

in Niger, promoted by EnterpriseWorks (EW) have a significant potential to increase productivity and enhance rural livelihoods. Even though costs for these technologies may be relatively low compared to sophisticated ones, they are still only accessible to a relatively small proportion of farmers who can afford them. This synthesis of poverty impacts of treadle pumps in West Africa, supplemented by a detailed case study Ghana, reveals the existence of a huge potential for achieving real poverty impacts, as evidenced in almost all countries where the treadle pump has been tried in the sub-Region. In Niger for instance, the adoption of treadle pumps by farmers using traditional means of irrigation resulted in significant improvements of labour efficiency, increased cultivated area, cropping intensity and increased farm income. Despite the relative abundance of family labour in Niger, adoption of treadle pump improved the efficiency of labour by reducing both the number of required farm workers and working hours. This led to significant savings of male labour (25%) and female labour (29%) labour, which was then reallocated to the expansion of farm sizes to boost household farm incomes for both

22

farmers and landless wage workers. Similar trends are also observed elsewhere in West Africa. Though outreach across West Africa is significant, it is largely limited to the few countries of Senegal, Mali, Burkina Faso, Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana and Benin, where EW is active.

75. EW treadle pump initiatives in West Africa are creating the necessary conditions for the

market-driven manufacture, sale and use of treadle pump to continue in the project countries even after the project assistance has ended. Thus, the primary objective of EW is ‘setting the pace’ and leaving the process to take off entirely by itself, rather than doing the entire dissemination. Using a private sector approach as a central element in replication efforts, EW promotes commercial dissemination of the treadle pump, focussing primarily on where conditions are favourable: existence of small scale traditional water management technologies, concentration of small scale farmers using these technologies with a desire for innovation and market-oriented production. Indeed, technologies such as the treadle pump can capacitate small farmers to respond well to market incentives, but the conditions for successful market-oriented production are often insufficiently investigated and need attention in most of the project countries in West Africa.

76. In its strategy of treadle pump promotion, EW incorporates NGO collaboration as a

central strategy in pump sales. Through memoranda of understanding in several countries, NGOs and their field staff act as sales agents while focusing on their core responsibilities. This form of collaboration has shown some successes at relatively lower costs, resulting in a win-win for both EW and supporting NGOs. This approach should also be extended to include micro finance institutions, with a view to facilitating the access of poor people to the pump, who would otherwise hardly meet the rather stringent criteria of local manufacturers. Therefore achieving real poverty impacts in West Africa through treadle pump interventions need to strongly consider supporting pro-poor micro-finance institutions that will increase the access of the poor to these technologies.

77. While the pump is believed to make a considerable impact in increasing incomes, direct

poverty impacts in the Ghana case study are still limited, since the poor have less access to the pumps. This issue needs to be strongly considered in treadle pump promotion, especially given the fact that poverty alleviation is an important goal of intervening agencies. Another relevant issue relates to gender. In Senegal for instance, proportion of female labour in treadle pump operation is not more than 4%. In Niger, the figure is even smaller and constitutes less than 2% of the entire treadle pump operators. By the same token, pump ownership is over 90% in the hands of men in most of West Africa, due to better access to land and capital. This low participation of women raises a new concern as to whether in fact leaving these issues un-addressed would create a new imbalance in the already skewed power relations between men and women, and aggravate the poverty situation further. Issues such as the difficulty of access to credit (for women), the dynamics of land rights, intensity of labour required to operate the pumps, etc. are among the reasons for the low participation of women in these programs. In Ghana, for instance, there is a strong evidence of differential wages for men and women wageworkers in operating the pumps, which further makes it difficult for women (poor landless wageworkers) to equally acquire the benefits secondary benefits treadle pump use.

23

ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL – A BACKGROUND ON THE MODEL AND STATUS OF WORK (de Fraiture 2004) 78. The study aims to provide an objective and scientifically sound basis to debates on water

for food and environment, the International Water Management Institute (IWMI) and International Food Policy Research Institute embarked on a joint modelling exercise, resulting in the WATERSIM model. WATERSIM (Water, Agriculture, Technology, Environment and Resources Simulation Model) explores the impact of water and food related policies on water scarcity, food production, food security and environment. The model can assess the tradeoffs between irrigated and rain fed production in terms of resource requirements, crop prices and variability. It can track virtual water flows and look at the effect of trade policies on food prices and local water use. Further, it has the potential to explore the possible impact of climate change on agricultural production, crop prices and water use.

79. For this study WATERSIM will provide three alternative future scenarios of water supply

and demand for SSA and their policy implications for different countries. (1) Business as usual scenario, where present trends of investment in water related

development continues in to the future, (2) More irrigation scenario, where increased investment is expected than at present, and (3) A scenario of more rain-fed yield and more trade between regions within SSA or

more trade with regions outside the SSA. Model structure 80. Broadly speaking the model consists of two fully integrated modules: the ‘food demand

and supply’ module, which is adapted from IMPACT; and the ‘water supply and demand’ module which uses a water balance based on the Water Accounting framework underlying PODIUM combined with elements from the IMPACT-WATER model.

81. To adequately reflect water availability and allocation, it makes most sense to use river

basins as basic spatial unit. When it comes to food policy analysis, administrative boundaries should be used (trade and policy making happens at national level, not at river basins scale). Therefore, the food module divides the world into 115 economic regions, following administrative boundaries, of which 40 in SSA. The water module runs at major river basin scale, 125 for the globe and 18 in SSA. The interaction between food and water modules is facilitated by intersecting basins and regions into 282 Food Producing Units (FPU’s).

Food demand and supply 82. The backbone of the food demand and supply module is a world trade model that connects

the 115 economic regions through trade. Each region is characterized by demand and supply functions –one for each of the 20 commodities- which relate quantities to prices. Demand is influenced by changes in income, population and prices. Supply is shifted by changes in yields, areas and technology changes. The difference between supply and demand in each region generates an excess supply or demand which, when aggregated at global level, determines the world market clearing price. That is, at the equilibrium world price the total amount of imports is equal to the total amount of exports. In this way, both prices and trade volumes are endogenous to the model.

24

Water demand and supply 83. Water demand is derived from three sectors -agriculture, domestic and industrial. At basin

level, water availability is simulated using a water balance approach, considering inflows, outflows, existing infrastructure and management practices. Where supply falls short of demand, water is distributed over the months to match demand patterns using an optimization formulation that maximizes the ratio demand over supply. Sub-basins are connected in such a way that outflow from the upstream becomes inflow into the lower sub-basin. In some basins, water availability limits agricultural production during some years. In that case updated areas and yield are fed back into the food module.

Integration of water and food modules 84. The basic assumption in the food module is that each year a partial economic equilibrium

for agricultural commodities is reached. The water module is based on a water balance approach. Both modules are connected through two variables: 1) agricultural area, which determines food supply and water demand; 2) crop price which determines food demand and crop profitability which in turn affects water allocation over crops (in case of water shortage, in allocating water more weight is given to more profitable crops). The model iterates between the modules until market equilibrium and water balance is reached.

Advantages of the Watersim model methodology 85. The Watersim methodology has a few advantages over other forecasts or scenario tools,

especially for the use to SSA.

(1) Food demand –and hence water demand- is defined in an economic sense depending on prices, elasticities and income, as opposed to food requirements that are based on nutritional needs. The calorie intake in some countries in SSA remains below requirement because of low incomes. Defining food demand as a function of income thus provides a more realistic starting point for scenarios.

(2) Crop areas and yields are defined as a function of input prices, technology and

investments. But also depend on crop prices. This captures the farmers’ incentive to raise production (for example by improved inputs or larger area allocated to a particular crop) if a crop becomes more profitable.

(3) Crop areas and yields in irrigated and rain fed agriculture are defined as a function of

water supply (either from rain or irrigation). This allows for exploring the impact of rainfall variability on irrigated and rain fed yields.

(4) Food production is split out in irrigated and rain fed agriculture (at the demand side no

such distinction is made). This allows for an assessment of the tradeoffs between irrigated and rain fed production in terms of investments, resource requirements, crop prices and variability. Since most of the production in SSA is under rain fed conditions this is an important advantage.

(5) Iterating between food and water modules until both an economic equilibrium and

water balance are reached, the model includes feedback mechanisms that level off exponential trends and prevent variables to blow up. These feedback mechanisms are an important feature of the WATERSIM model that distinguishes it from most other water and food projection models. For example, water shortage may lead to a reduction in food production. But this in turn leads to higher food prices, inducing a

25

higher production in the next season and thus partly offsetting food shortage. Another example: higher food demand leads to higher water demand. But increased water demand may provide an incentive to improve on water use efficiency, thus offsetting part of the increased demand.

(6) The modelling framework is flexible to explore a range of scenarios. For example,

policies on meeting environmental water requirements can be entered as hard constraint in which environmental requirements are always met, even if they are in conflict with food self-sufficiency policies. But environmental requirements can also enter as soft constraint to simulate a situation in which a certain degree of environmental damage is tolerated in extreme water short periods, giving priority to food production targets.

(7) International trade and world market prices are important components of the

modelling framework, putting the SSA regional study in a global context. Status of the Work 86. Model coding and structure development are completed. The updated baseline year (2000)

will be completed by the end of October. Scenario analysis will be done in November. IRRIGATION COSTS (Rollin, Sally, Inocencio, and Country Consultants 2004) 87. The case studies work was carried out in Madagascar and Mali with the knowledge that

the planning and implementation and the IFAD poverty studies conducted case studies in these countries in order to optimize synergies and for the benefit of the overall synthesis work. The case studies in Kenya and Ghana were carried out as ‘pilot’ cases in 2003 confirmed that determinants of irrigation costs cited in reports from mid to late 1980s for parts of sub-Saharan Africa are still the same factors affecting costs almost two decades after. The work was carried out through interviews with key informants and resource persons including ministry and agency personnel, donor representatives, consulting and construction firms, and closely examining selected projects in terms of key determinants.

88. Variability in costs across schemes, projects, and countries

One important consideration in this study to take note is that there is considerable variability in costs, not only among the different projects that were studied, but also among schemes within a project. For supposedly similar projects across countries, differences can be accounted for by differences in country (physical, technical, institutional, political, etc.) conditions. The variability between projects can be due to differences in types of project and schemes within each project, e.g., schemes with pumping are more expensive than river diversion schemes. In Ghana, per hectare rehabilitation costs were higher for schemes using a combination of pump and sprinkler technologies compared to other combinations. The more expensive schemes are irrigating vegetables while the relatively cheaper ones (although still extremely high compared to averages in Asia) are primarily irrigating rice. Furthermore, as soon as the costs of land levelling are included, the costs increase a lot. The relatively lower investment costs in Madagascar can be attributed to this – with most irrigated schemes (and all schemes of the PPI projects) irrigated by gravity and levelling (and often the secondary and tertiary canal networks to bring water to the fields) is traditionally done by the beneficiaries. An analysis of 13 irrigation projects in Kenya show that the most expensive ones were those

26

built in the 1980s, designed by international consultants and were foreign donor funded. More current estimates indicate lower costs ranging from less than $1000 to a maximum real unit cost of $3,500. This trend can be interpreted in two ways: (1) that these are rehabilitation projects with water sources such as dams already part of the sunk costs, or (2) that this can reflect a shift in government investment away from large and sophisticated to small and a lot less complex projects which can be less capital-intensive and therefore more affordable in the light of a cash constrained government and the shying away of foreign donors from irrigation. Given these wide variations in irrigation investment costs, one has to be careful in interpreting or generalizing results from the case studies.

89. What comprise irrigation investment costs?

• Primary network: Some substantial differences can appear depending on whether one takes into account or not the primary network. In Madagascar, the primary network accounts for most of the cost. In Mali, the least expensive projects are those that already benefit from a primary (and secondary) network. Such projects focus only on the tertiary level.

• Flood protection embankments: The construction of protective embankments against

flooding requires the execution of work (e.g. use of mechanical power, more capital-intensive technologies) that can only be achieved by a specialized enterprise. The associated costs are particularly high for schemes of small size, rising to as much as 80% of the scheme cost in some Malian schemes. The flood protection structures are generally designed on the basis of centennial rises in the water level. The acceptance of a higher degree of risk would theoretically allow a reduction of the construction cost of the embankment, but it is not certain if this could be justified economically, because of the relatively small differences between the centennial and decennial heights of rise in the water level. This is one of the reasons for the much higher cost of the rehabilitation of the Manandona irrigation system in Madagascar (double embankment on each bank of the river).

• Drainage: In some irrigation schemes in Madagascar or Mali, drainage systems are

introduced whenever it is a necessary condition for the production or for achieving a better water control regime. On average, drainage accounts for more than US$ 650/ha when added to a project in Mali.

• User participation: To reduce demands from governments and donors, and also to

ensure the involvement and buy-in of the beneficiaries, irrigation projects make provision for greater involvement and participation of the users who are called upon to contribute to labor and capital. In Mali, the contribution of the farmers reaches up to 30% of the total project investment costs. This involvement has two consequences for irrigation investments costs: o where time is not a constraint, use of high labor intensity engineering solutions,

compared to projects that call for firms using costly equipment and specialized skills, can lead to less expensive projects; and

o the involvement of the users is often not taken into account in the calculations of cost per hectare, for example, the unaccounted efforts of the beneficiaries to make their plots irrigable (carrying out land levelling in Madagascar) lead to underestimation of project costs.

27

• Accompanying measures and support services: A very large range of accompanying

measures can be incorporated in the costs of projects. These range from technical advice to catchment planning and may also include literacy programs and credit facilities. Often such measures are undertaken to improve the chances of success and sustainability of infrastructural improvement, but they could also dramatically increase the cost of the projects.

• Operation and maintenance costs: Depending on the size of the initial investment, the

recurrent costs can account for a relatively large proportion of the project costs. With large initial investments, the annual maintenance costs generally ranges from 5% to 10% of the initial investment. In the case of small investments, operation and maintenance expenses could be higher and infrastructure may have to be rebuilt more frequently. So the objective of reducing the overall costs of irrigation development could paradoxically imply an increase in the initial capital cost, assuming that more expensive projects (with higher initial capital costs) are of better quality, would last longer and would entail lower operation and maintenance costs.

90. Investment costs and quality of infrastructure

The costs of the investments in irrigation should be linked logically to the impact of the productivity increases expected from an improvement of water control.

• The degree of water control: In Mali, irrigation investment costs are strongly linked to

the scheme design and the level of water control. The costs of medium-sized total water control irrigated schemes (100 to 500 hectares) range from 5 to 7 million FCFA ($8780 to $12280) per hectare, mainly on account of the flood protection dykes. For the smaller schemes without safety embankments, the costs are lower (2 to 3 millions FCFA per hectare). The schemes under controlled submersion and, even more so, those under free submersion are a lot less costly to put in place but are also much less effective. At the other end of the scale, the failure of swamp management works (200 000 FCFA/ha) in Mali shows that inexpensive investments do not necessarily yield high returns when questions related to technical control, the problems of land tenure, and the difficulty for the maintenance of infrastructure in erosion-prone locations are not taken into account.

• Profitability and budget limitations: The search for adequate returns limits the

permissible level of investment for every perimeter. The physical design is sometimes adjusted to meet this constraint to the detriment of the quality and the durability of the infrastructure. This limitation constitutes the main reason for the need for frequent corrective measures, which ultimately increases the cost of the rehabilitation on the perimeter. High maintenance costs are not easily supported by the users (see also discussion on construction and O&M above).

• Standards for design and construction: One of the common problems met in all types

of schemes is the absence or the inadequacy of technical and economic norms for infrastructure design. This problem is particularly serious in the case of the small schemes where many intervening parties, sometimes without the requisite competence and experience, carry out work. The problem was especially obvious between the PPI1 project in Madagascar where work was carried out by big enterprises applying international norms and the PPI2 project where the project slicing allowed small

28

engineering firms to bid. Due to a lack of coherent norms, the quality of the work is very variable. The lack of information and norms related to water requirements and infiltration losses, on which depends the layout of the irrigation network is particularly critical, often resulting in the over-design of channels, control structures and motor-pumps and hence a large increase in costs1.

91. Factors determining irrigation investment costs

The many factors that influence irrigation investment costs can be regrouped in the following major categories:

• Physical factors: The quality of the soils, nature of the topography, and the

vulnerability to floods of the irrigation sites could have a more or less adverse effect on project costs. For example, in northern Ghana, where most irrigation schemes are located, the relatively flat topography make projects that include creation of storage facilities uneconomical -- there are few sites suitable for reservoirs, the dams that are built tend to be long, the volume of stored water would not usually justify the cost, and there would be high evaporation losses. In addition, in some projects the bulk of surface water cannot be used for irrigation in a cost-effective way, while average water yields of shallow tube-wells in pilot projects have been found to be low and only useable for drinking water and micro-scale irrigation.

• Project design:

o High level of infrastructure degradation: Sometimes, the amount of work involved in rehabilitation projects is comparable to a new project. In Madagascar, there is only rehabilitation, but the costs are often very high. In Mali, some rehabilitation projects are more expensive than new ones.

o Design mistakes: Changes in design during implementation because of lack of data at the time of project formulation, or underestimating the possible damage due to erosion and floods could cause a significant increase in the supplementary cost during construction. In addition to the over-design of canal networks and other infrastructure (already discussed above), the problem of over-design can also extend to the headworks. There are examples in Ghana where they are sometimes designed to serve almost four times the actual irrigable area, thereby increasing the cost per hectare when spread over the smaller actual command area. A review of individual smallholder (and pump-fed) irrigation clusters in Kenya highlighted problems with regard to choice of couplings for suction and delivery, use of wrong hydrant size, inappropriate length of hose pipes, and choice of pump and accessories without consideration of required lifting heads and discharges, among others. The reasons could be varied, ranging from limited technical knowledge on individual pump-fed systems among small farmers to lack of technical expertise among the non-governmental organizations (NGOs) helping to promote such technology.

1 From the start of rehabilitation in the early 1980s, a multitude of norms existed in the Office du Niger, with each project having its own approach. In 1989, efforts for harmonization led to the production of a document that would act as reference in the design of rehabilitation and new schemes. This document has been completed by (a) the technical norms of design and water management, DAH 1991 (b) the note on design options in the office of Niger, Molle.1992, as well as (c) the note on the harmonization of approaches for the rehabilitation and extension of rice plots within and outside the Office du Niger.

29

o The inadequate consideration of the views of the users and of local social reality does not encourage the active and willing participation of users in operations and maintenance.

• Project planning and implementation:

o Among the reasons are the slow processing of required project documents or delays in meeting donor conditions, either because of lack of capacity in the irrigation agency or lack of commitment from the side of government.

o The tendering and procurement procedures, especially for large schemes, can take a long time. For instance, calling for tenders could take a minimum of one month while evaluation could extend from three to six months, and tender negotiation can take at least a month thereafter.

o Incorrect projections of inflation, aside from delaying the start of project implementation, can lead to substantial variations between final and bid prices. Similarly, poor tender specifications can also lead to high variations in costs.Weak competition between the bidders for design or construction contracts due to a small number of qualified bidders, or very onerous administrative requirements. For example, during the first phase of the PPI project in Madagascar, every scheme was the subject of only one contract, which did not favor real competition by effectively eliminating the small and medium engineering enterprises.

• Poor supporting infrastructure: The poor state of transportation and basic

infrastructure in land-locked countries such as Ghana and Mali also contribute to the escalation of per hectare irrigation investment costs. Ghana’s transport infrastructure used to be among the best in Africa before it was hit by economic crises in the early 1970s and the mid 1990s. The transport sector suffered because of the lack of: (a) foreign exchange to import vehicles, spare parts and fuel; (b) funding for investments, repairs, and maintenance; and (c) experienced and well-motivated staff at the Ministry of Roads and Highways to manage and maintain the public transport system. In Kenya, it is reported that many smallholder irrigation clusters were relatively inaccessible due to bad roads. This problem led to difficulties in repairing pumping plants and purchasing needed materials and inputs such as spares, fuel, and even lubricating oil. When population density is low (and land is abundant), high transport costs also result in spatial isolation. Supply and price of raw materials Cement: In Madagascar the cost of concrete represents 17% of the duty-free cost of the cost of rehabilitation of the small irrigation schemes. This cost is made up 60% of cement, which is entirely imported. The locally manufactured cement is not suitable for use in concrete. A single company had the quasi-totality of the market for import and distribution of this product until now. The price of cement is relatively steady but the situation of quasi-monopoly generates some episodes of speculation following a rupture of stock. The frequency of provision also increases its cost because the companies do not maintain big stocks to avoid physical loss of quality and theft. Steel: In Madagascar, the cost of steel represents 8% of the total duty-free cost of rehabilitation. This material is all imported and 5 hardware companies in the capital city assure their import. Sometimes, origin clauses (AFD funds for example) don’t favor competition and could have some repercussion on the price. A survey carried out in Mali shows also that the prices of construction material have, on average, increased more than the price of paddy, on which the economic

30

profitability of the scheme is calculated. Sofreco shows as well that sometimes considerable differences between some unit prices can exist depending on the financing sources, of the size of the contractors and the nationality of these enterprises. Evidence from Kenya shows that, although most materials used in construction of irrigation projects are locally available (e.g. cement, sand, gravel, timber, steel), construction equipment and specialized equipment (drip, sprinkler and fertigation units) are imported and are subject to government taxes and tariffs.

• Limited local input supply market: Local production of irrigation construction materials and equipment is handicapped by limited (and fragmented) demand for these products, relatively expensive labor, and high royalty payments for the technologies being produced. This results in continued importation of requirements. However, evidence from Kenya indicates that there is such a wide variety of pumps and engines imported by dealers and distributors that getting the right spare parts to complete a project is not easy. Delays in obtaining spares and carrying out repairs adversely affected operations and even minimum maintenance. Suppliers either tend to stock only minor or cheap parts; major and relatively expensive parts are and imported on-demand. Related to this was the limited network of suppliers and service providers in close proximity to the irrigation schemes, which further hinders the acquisition of spare parts in a timely fashion, and also contributes to higher prices.

• Fiscal policies: The impact of customs duties and taxes on irrigation investment costs

is generally small where construction or rehabilitation is undertaken under the umbrella of specific projects that are exempted from these levies. However many materials necessary for the operation and maintenance of the schemes are imported and therefore subject to these duties and taxes. A similar situation applies to investments by the private sector. In some cases, donors insist that materials and equipment be sourced from their own countries, which also contributes to cost escalation: a 5 horsepower petrol engine driven pump-set from India capable of irrigating a 2 hectare piece of land costs US$ 359 while a pump to do similar work from Japan costs US$ 577; a 125mm sluice valve from Britain costs US$ 155 and a similar one from India is only US$ 40.

92. Planning and timing of operations is important

• Project management: Careful planning can help avoid unnecessary immobilization of plant and equipment (and idling personnel), such as during the rainy season, or redoing construction work that may not have attained its full strength before the beginning of rains. In relation to incentives for the users, the project must be described well and fully explained to the beneficiaries, who must be invited to express their priorities clearly and to identify their possible contribution to the project. It is therefore necessary to set apart an explicit phase of explanation and dialogue before the start of the project. There are numerous examples of structures that have been destroyed even before their first use because their utility was not either fully explained or accepted (devices for water flow regulation or measurement, for example). The period between this phase of explanation and the commencement of the project must not be too long to avoid loss of interest on the part of the beneficiaries. The interest of the users can be assessed by their contribution to the project. This is the

31

concept of progressive execution of work put in place by the PPI2 project in Madagascar -- the starting point of a new phase of work on a scheme was bound to the completion of previous work by the beneficiaries or to the demonstration of good management of the existing infrastructure.

• Administrative delay: The slowness of an overly centralized public administration in attending to delivery orders and payments of contractors could cause unnecessary expenses for the companies concerned (e.g. workers and equipment immobilized). The time lags between the signatures of contracts, the carrying out of work and the processing of payments by the administration don't always allow the expected calendar of payments to the companies to be respected. This could result in the companies seeking other more expensive modes of financing. Ultimately, these costs also get incorporated in the computation of their profit margins. Sometimes, very long delays between the studies and the actual implementation could even lead to restarting the studies because of changed conditions.

• Launching work during periods of rain: During the rainy season, the contractors are

obliged to stop work in order not to incur the risk of redoing them. This work stoppage gives rise to delay in the completion of work. Although this delay doesn't entail a change in the approximate cost of the contract, it is often taken into account in fixing the profit margins of the enterprises. Otherwise, the cost incurred on account of such work stoppages has an adverse effect on the quality of work. On the other hand, the approach of the rainy season could also force the contractors to use costlier devices expensive to accelerate work.

93. Conclusion

In considering the costs of irrigation projects, one should remember that this is only looking at one side of a coin. It is not that idea of this report that this single criterion be used in formulating an investment strategy. Ultimately, this consideration has to be balanced with potential trade-offs with costs of operating and maintenance, project profitability and sustainability. If the objective is to ensure greater sustainability by minimizing maintenance and operation costs to make them easily affordable to farmers and public institutions managing schemes, a relatively high initial investment cost can be justified. If donors and governments are concerned with irrigating a larger area and bigger number of farmers, then pursuit of relatively cheaper investment costs per hectare should be properly evaluated especially if it will mean potentially higher operation and maintenance which farmers are to shoulder.

94 . Project investment options will be determined by the various actors in a project and the

ultimate choice may reflect the preference of the most dominant actor:

The users - The participation of the producers in the implementation of their schemes is an important factor of cost reduction. Their involvement from the stage of project design guarantees a better appropriation of the scheme by the population and creates an awareness of the needs and constraints related to their operation and maintenance. The tertiary networks and parts of the secondary networks as well as the levelling of their fields could be undertaken by the producers. However, this logic of user involvement must not be pursued to an extreme where use of manual labor results in poor quality work and eventually increased operational costs of the scheme. Users would have

32

interest to pursue relatively more costly investments if it would mean lowered operating and maintenance costs for them.

The State played a dominant role in irrigation in the past, but is now gradually

disengaging from direct involvement in the management of irrigation schemes. However, it should continue to take responsibility for support services and infrastructure such as roads and markets, education, agricultural policies and institutions, including: • Creation of market incentives, promoting professionalism among the local enterprises

and entrepreneurs, and facilitating dialogue between different actors in the domain of irrigation;

• Setting up technical and economic norms, quality controls, monitoring of transactions; and

• Facilitating information exchange.

The private sector – The existence of banks, supply or marketing institutions, consulting and construction companies gives rise to a certain dynamism, competition, and transparency of interventions, which can all have an important influence on irrigation investments costs.

95. Remaining Questions

Despite the contributions of the individual case studies, many questions remain unanswered. They cannot all be resolved in this report and would merit further (and perhaps separate) investigation or will be addressed in the full report with project data from the donor partners in this Collaborative Program:

• Among the factors identified, which are the key ones that if addressed, investment costs can meaningfully be reduced?

• Even if for projects where investment costs can be established to be relatively cheap, there is the question of sustainability and perhaps trade-offs such as higher recurrent costs which farmers are expected to shoulder which in turn can affect the project’s sustainability. To what extent should the cost reduction objective be pursued against other objectives or in what conditions should this goal be solely pursued?

• What is the importance of the farmers’ contribution in project costs and if this has any impact at all in reducing costs?

• Are there differences in maintenance and operating costs by producer/water user associations as against public institutions?

96. The above are some of the key questions which the case studies will only provide

indicative answers which would be difficult to generalize. AGRICULTURAL WATER DEVELOPMENT FOR POVERTY REDUCTION IN EAST AND SOUTHERN AFRICA (Peacock 2004) Agricultural Water Development and Poverty Reduction 97. The case studies have shown that investment in agricultural water development has a

significant impact on poverty reduction. In the cases studied, without the investment project2 the beneficiaries were living in absolute poverty – with an average income of

2 A distinction is made here between the cases of full scale investment projects and grant-assisted pilot projects such as the ‘Rural Enterprise and Agri-Services Promotion Project’ in Kenya and the various alternative agricultural water development projects in Kenya, Tanzania and Zimbabwe.

33

less than US$1.00 per day per household3. Incremental income accruing to households as a result of direct participation in the projects averaged US$2.50 per day per household, representing an increase of 150%. Part of this income is spent on employing up to 100 person days of labour from outside the household, paid a cash or in kind equivalent of approximately US$1.00 per labour day. It is estimated that up to 1.6 additional households, over and above those directly participating, are able to secure their household food requirements in this way.

98. In addition to increased food supply, employment and incomes, interventions have generated a number of other tangible direct impacts on livelihoods in the project areas, including: improved housing; ability to accumulate assets (particularly livestock and farming equipment, such as ploughs); ability to pay school fees; improved diet and nutrition; and ability to afford better clothing.

99. Although not quantified, the most visible and striking impact has been improved housing – and there is no doubt that this has been a direct impact of the interventions. Indirect impacts have included increased local trade and growth in ‘downstream’ industries (including small-scale and urban agro-processing as well as workshops for manufacturing farming equipment and architectural goods, such as windows and door frames). It is unlikely that any other type of intervention in the project areas – such as extension for rainfed agriculture or livestock development – would have had the same level of impact, although in some cases investment in rural roads would enhance impact by opening up trade.

100. However, the projects studied are not as successful as expected at design, or as reported in M&E set pieces (such as mid-term reviews and evaluations) or, indeed, as they could be.

Beneficiaries and Targeting 101. In general, the approach to targeting on IFAD-assisted projects has been to prioritise

regions within a country that contain high incidences of absolute poverty and, within that context, to define strata of the population to which project interventions can be targeted. How these strata are defined varies depending on the type of project the socio-economic characteristics of the project area. Some designs have specified that certain percentages of female-headed households, or youths or other disadvantaged groups must be included in those who are to directly benefit. However, it is recognised that the ‘poorest of the poor’ cannot always be directly targeted, often because it is not practical to do so with the available the available socio-economic information or because the poorest stratum does not have the resources required to successfully participate, no matter how limited these may be.

102. Nevertheless, the investment projects studied have included at least the numbers of the poorest stratum expected at appraisal. Moreover, poorer participants have clearly benefited from the resourcefulness and drive of better-off participants. Non-participating poorer households have also benefited from the inclusion of the better off, through direct employment and donations (e.g. at Maunganidze, Zimbabwe).

103. The case study on the Rural Enterprise and Agri-Business Promotion Project (REAP) in Kenya, in particular, has suggested that investment in agricultural water development for market-linked high value crop production by farmer-managed, commercially run

3 Note: per household, rather than per capita.

34

business entities can provide opportunities for employment and profit-sharing by the poorest stratum. This is because, if properly done, such a model does not necessarily require that participants possess any significant own resources.

Cost Effectiveness f the various agricultural water development interventions considered in

105. The main reason for lower than expected benefit-cost ratios was that productivity is

106. It is difficult to generalise, but the overwhelming impression was that there is a lack of

Participation and Empowerment projects in Zimbabwe on which contrasting approaches

108. The case studies suggested that participation has gone only part of the way: smallholder

104. The unit cost othe case studies, on a per hectare and per beneficiary household basis, is shown in Appendix A together with details of intended use, estimated incremental benefits and estimated benefit-cost ratio (calculated using discounted cash flow techniques). With two exceptions (Dombolidenje and Maunganidze, both in Zimbabwe), unit capital costs per hectare and per beneficiary household have fallen within the normal range of costs for IFAD-assisted agricultural water development projects. In that respect, therefore, the case studies can be taken as representative of IFAD’s portfolio. With one exception (Madagascar), the estimated benefit-cost ratios are marginal (assuming a minimum discount rate of 8%)4. They are also lower than expected at appraisal or as indicated by subsequent analyses (e.g. for sub-project feasibility studies, mid-term reviews and evaluations).

lower than expected, although in one case (Dombolidenje, which required the construction of a new dam) capital costs were also much greater than expected. Productivity was lower than expected either because the targets set were unachievable (e.g. because of over-ambitious assumptions with regard to water supply, as in Madagascar and Tanzania) or because of sub-optimal irrigation systems (REAP, Kenya) or because of low use of inputs and poor crop husbandry (in all cases).

awareness, among all stakeholders (and denial among some), of low productivity levels – and therefore a lack of direction in addressing the constraints.

107. The case studies included twowere adopted towards participation. The decision to invest in Maunganidze was taken at national level; farmers did not know that an irrigation scheme would be constructed until the contractor arrived on site. On completion, however, farmers took full responsibility for management as well as O&M of the scheme and have managed their responsibility reasonably well so far, although the scheme could do better in terms of productivity. The decision to construct Dombolidenje Dam and Irrigation scheme was taken at district level, following a long process of capacity building and participatory planning. It has not been a very profitable investment. The conclusion from this is not that participation is a waste of time (although it does take time), but that other things may be as, or even more, important – such as accessing markets, ensuring physical and financial feasibility, as well as ensuring accountability for things that go wrong.

farmers are being expected to commercialize, but they are not treated as commercial farmers. They can participate in logframe planning but they are not empowered to decide whether a proposed subproject is the best of the available options in financial

4 In other words, assuming that the minimum acceptable IRR is 8%.

35

terms, or whether the service provider is cost-effective, or to negotiate their way for fair prices or in river basin planning.

Market Linkages 109. The case studies included two projects for which grants had been provided to pilot

innovative market linkage interventions – one supporting Maunganidze, among other projects in Zimbabwe, and the other the Kenya REAP Project. The project in Zimbabwe was implemented by a national NGO and that in Kenya by an international NGO.

110. At Maunganidze, the project had facilitated contract growing and had guaranteed seasonal credit, as well as providing technical advice. However, it did not have an exit strategy. It was apparently unaware that yields were much lower than expected and it therefore made no attempt to address the problem. Moreover, it had apparently not noticed, in a highly inflationary environment, that the price being paid for the main commodity – canning tomatoes – was stale (USD0.02 per kg, or less than one percent of the retail price).

111. At REAP, the intention was to facilitate the entry of smallholder farmers into commercial horticultural export production. However, instead of facilitating it, the NGO took responsibility for production and marketing and later discovered that it was not fully competent to do so.

112. In both cases the rationale and basic design concept was sound, but not very detailed, and the outcome unexpected. The lessons from this experience are that, to obtain value from pilot projects such as these, (a) it would have been worth investing additional time and money in more explicit design and feasibility work, (b) NGOs should not be relied on to provide business skills (unless they are specialised to do so) and (c) better supervision is necessary to keep on track.

Profitability 113. Commercialization of smallholder agriculture, as a means of poverty reduction, is a

strategic thrust of most governments in the region. By definition, commercial smallholder irrigation means the profitable use of land, water, capital and labour. However, apart from that for manufacturing and distributing treadle pumps in Tanzania and Kenya, none of the projects studied, including the two market linkage support interventions in Kenya and Zimbabwe, was as profitable as it should have been. Overall, the concept of profit has not yet been mainstreamed in project design and implementation: a dependency syndrome prevails.

Alternative Agricultural Water Development 114. There has been growing interest within the region in recent years in ‘water harvesting’ as

an alternative to conventional irrigation, but there is little agreement on the definition of the term. For example, much of what would be considered as conventional irrigation by some (for example the construction of small storage dams – or Mara Bunds – for regulating water supplies to paddy fields under MaraFIP, Tanzania) is considered as water harvesting by others. Water harvesting is therefore not necessarily an alternative to irrigation.

115. However, the term ‘water harvesting’ is usually employed as an umbrella term describing a range of methods of collecting and concentrating various forms of rainfall runoff (rooftop runoff, overland flow, stream flow) for various purposes (agricultural, livestock, domestic and others). A substantial amount of interesting applied research has

36

already been carried out under this umbrella – examples of which were visited during the field work. However, the work to date has not clearly demonstrated physical and financial feasibility.

116. For the time being, therefore, water harvesting does not offer any promise of alternatives, low cost or otherwise, to what is generally regarded as irrigation development. Stakeholders must make do with what is known. One possible exception to this conclusion is conservation agriculture – i.e. in-situ moisture conservation for yield stability.

Treadle Pumps 117. The case study on a DFID-assisted intervention to establish a market chain for treadle

pumps in Kenya and Tanzania demonstrated that that well-designed pumps, manufactured and sold by the private sector, are affordable (at about USD85 per unit, or USD420 per hectare) and profitable investments for smallholders. It also demonstrated that a specialised NGO could be business oriented.

118. Although only a small sample of pumps in operation was visited, the common finding was that, where the pumps were used for irrigation, this is for the production of high value horticultural crops for the local market. Incremental farm income from such use can be as high as USD500 per year per pump. Furthermore, each pump can provide full time employment for at least two people (for pumping and crop production). Users expressed general satisfaction with the pump and a few indicated that they would buy another. However, pest and disease control is poor, yields are well below potential and farmers complained that they do not have access to technical advice on how to make optimum use of the pumps.

119. Approtec’s role in the intervention was to design the pump, facilitate manufacturing by the private sector and support market development (including, in some cases, the provision of credit to manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers). The cost of this support was some several millions of USD and it is unlikely that borrowers would consider investing loan funds to replicate such an enterprise elsewhere. However, if bilateral donors were willing to finance development and marketing of the pumps, they should also consider parallel support to integrating private sector crop production support services.

HIV/AIDS 120. Although not quantified, the impact of HIV/AIDS was apparent in most case studies and

most probably contributes significantly to low productivity. HIV/AIDS had not yet been ‘mainstreamed’ into the projects studied, all of which (apart from that for treadle pumps and that for alternative agricultural water development) had been appraised in the previous decade. It is however being mainstreamed in the new generation of IFAD-assisted agricultural water development projects, such as the Lower Usuthu Smallholder Irrigation Project (LUSIP – co-financed by ADB, among others), which includes a substantial health component linked to irrigation development. LUSIP provides for awareness and education campaigns, the construction and staffing of a new, self-financing clinic and prophylaxis, as well as practical monitoring of proxy indicators (e.g. incidences of cases of STDs, respiratory problems, skin rashes and diarrhoea, at existing and proposed clinics).

Monitoring and Evaluation

37

121. Monitoring and evaluation has been poorly designed and executed throughout the cases studied: there has been insufficient focus on the prime objective of income poverty reduction. Monitoring systems need to record the proxies for incremental income, i.e. irrigable areas (by season), cropping patterns, inputs, yields and prices. If commercialization of smallholder irrigation is the strategy, farmers should be maintaining their own M&E of these indicators anyway.

Sustainability 122. Simple, low cost, gravity fed irrigation of the type developed in Tanzania (PIDP and

MaraFIP) and Madagascar for rice production can be sustainable, as can pumped groundwater irrigation of the type developed at Maunganidze in Zimbabwe. However, the case studies have shown that agricultural water development for smallholders can only be sustainable if (a) the physical works function as intended and (b) the investment is financially viable at the farm level.

Supervision, Quality Assurance and Implementation Support 123. That project outcomes have failed to meet expectations suggests either design faults or

ineffective implementation. However, little fault could be found with the design of the projects studied. This then brings implementation into question, in which case the quality of supervision is also questionable.

124. The case studies did not indicate that supervision missions had positively influenced the quality of project outcomes, or ensured sustainability. It would be unreasonable to think they could: they do not have sufficient resources to be strong enough technically to provide implementation support. What has been missing during implementation is access to sound technical and financial advice. But this needs to be provided as an integral part of the institutional arrangements for the project.

Mindset Change 125. Since development strategies are now based on commercialization and profit, the case

studies suggest the need for mindset change among all stakeholders. Training for transformation (which appears to be relatively unknown outside Zimbabwe) would be a good starting point. Farmers would then begin to consider the concept of empowerment, about profit rather than welfare and whether the existing legal framework suits their purpose or change is necessary.

38

REFERENCES De Fraiture, C. 2004. “Assessment of Potential Study Update,” Colombo: IWMI. Kamara, A., G. Danso, S.A. Mahu, O. Cofie, P. Drechsel, B. van Koppen. 2004. “Agricultural

Water Investments and Poverty Reduction Impacts in West Africa: A Review of Treadle Pumps in Ghana and Niger,” Report submitted to the African Development Bank and the Collaborative Program Partners. Pretoria: IWMI.

McCartney, M., E. Boelee, O. Cofie, and Country Consultants. 2004. “Evaluation of the

Environmental and Health Impacts of Informal Agricultural Water Development in sub-Saharan Africa,” Report submitted to the African Development Bank and the Collaborative Program Partners. Pretoria: IWMI.

Morardet, S., J. Seshoka, H. Sally, D. Merrey and Country Consultants. 2004. “Analysis of

Irrigation Project Planning and Implementation in SSA: Case Studies,” Report submitted to the African Development Bank and the Collaborative Program Partners. Pretoria: IWMI.

Peacock, T. 2004. “Agricultural Water Development for Poverty Reduction in East and

Southern Africa: Synthesis of Findings,” Harare: IFAD. Peden, D., A. Astatke, I. Baltenweck, K. Sonder, G. Tadesse, A. Workalemahu, M. Asrat, K.

Berhe, A. El Wakeel, H. Faki, B. Fadlalla, A. Notenbaert, and A. Freeman. 2004. “Agricultural Water and Livestock Production in sub-Saharan Africa: Case Studies,” Report submitted to IWMI-Africa.

Penning de Vries, F., A. Inocencio, and H. Sally. 2004. “Opportunities for Private Sector

Participation in Agricultural Water Development and Management: Study Update,” Pretoria: IWMI.

Rollin, D., H. Sally, Inocencio, A. and Country Consultants. 2004. “Irrigation Investment

Costs Case Studies: Synthesis of Findings,” Report submitted to the World Bank and the Collaborative Program Partners. Pretoria: IWMI.

39

Annex 1. List of World Bank and African Development Bank Funded Projects in Africa used in the Cost and Planning & Implementation Study Components*

Project Donor

RegionSub-

region Countries Project Code Mape Dam Project (PCR) ADB SSA Central Cameroon ADB/BD/IF/97?96

Amibara Irrigation Project ADB SSA East Ethiopia ADF/BD/WP/99/66 OCDE.2/MM/HLL/20000/12/IP-

ADP 1/002 Amibara Drainage Project I ADB SSA East Ethiopia Projet de Relance Des Activites Urgentes de Production Agricole ADB SSA East Rwanda ADF/BD/WP/97/61

ADB/BD/IF/97/257; ADF/BD/IF/97?196 Kapunga Rice Irrigation Project ADB SSA East Tanzania

Tsiribihina Irrigated Agricultural Development Project- Manambolo Phase I ADB SSA Indian Ocean Is Madagascar ADF/BD/IF/97/166

Emergency Irrigation Infrastructure Repairs Project ADB SSA Indian Ocean Is Madagascar ADF/BD/IF/97/137

Projet Sucrier D'analiva ADB SSA Indian Ocean Is Madagascar ADB/OPEV/95/08

Rice growing development project Phase II ADB SSA Indian Ocean Is Madagascar ADF/BD/IF/96/44

Boche Plain Irrigation Project (PCR & PPAR) ADB SSA Indian Ocean Is Mauritania ADF/BD/WP/94/81

Moyen Cheliff Irrigation Project ADB NA North Algeria ADB/BD/IF/2000/200 ADB/BD/IF2000/286; ADF/BD/IF/2000/231 Drainage V Project ADB NA North Egypt

Upper Doukala Irrigation Project ADB NA North Morocco ADB/BD/IF/2001/245

Barbara Dam ADB NA North Tunisia ADB/BD/IF/2001/246 Ghezala Mateur Agro-Industrial Complex Development Project ADB NA North Tunisia ADB/BD/IF/99/90 Integrated Rural Development in Disadvantaged Areas: Phase One ADB NA North Tunisia ADB/BD/IF/2001/135

Integrated Rural Development Project-Phase II ADB NA North Tunisia ADB/BD/IF/2001/244

Ras Djebel-Galaat Irrigation Development Project ADB NA North Tunisia ADB/BD/IF/99/183

Development of 4 irrigation sectors in the Medjerda Valley ADB SSA North Tunisia CS/TN/AGR/68/001

Phuthiatsana Irrigation Development Project ADB SSA South Lesotho ADF/OPEV/91/16

Dande Smallholder Irrigation Development Project ADB SSA South Zimbabwe ADF/BD/WP/99?128

The Region du Lac Development Rehabilitation Programme ADB SSA Sudano-Sahel Chad ADF/BD/IF/2000/174

Projet D'Amenagement Hydro-Agricole du Polder de Mamdi ADB SSA Sudano-Sahel Chad CHDB/PARF/86/01

Djibouti Town Sewerage & Irrigation Project ADB SSA Sudano-Sahel Djibouti Kourani Baria Irrigation Development Project (PCR & PPAR) ADB SSA Sudano-Sahel Niger ADF/BD/WP/92/106

Manantali Dam Project ADB SSA Sudano-Sahel Senegal

Rice Development Project ADB SSA Sudano-Sahel The Gambia ADF/BD/IF/2000/224

Jahali-Pacharr Smallholder Rice Project ADB SSA Sudano-Sahel The Gambia ADF/BD/IF/97/153

Oueme Development Project ADB SSA West Benin ADF/BD/IF/2000/125

Tombali Rice Development Project ADB SSA West Guinea Bissau ADF/BD/IF/98/108

Second Semry Rice Project WB SSA Central Cameroon P000342

(Cancelled) Amibara Irrigation Project WB SSA East Ethiopia P00679

Revised Amibara Irrigation Project WB SSA East Ethiopia P000690

Bura Irrigation Settlement Project WB SSA East Kenya P001255 River basin Management and small holder irrigation improvement Project (SAR) WB SSA East Tanzania P0038570

Lac Alaotra Rice Intensification Project WB SSA Indian Ocean Is Madagascar P001496

Mangoky Agricultural Development Project (No CD for PCR) WB SSA Indian Ocean Is Madagascar P001483

Irrigation rehabilitation Project (PCR) WB SSA Indian Ocean Is Madagascar P001501

40

Second Irrigation Rehabilitation Project WB SSA Indian Ocean Is Madagascar P001522

Agricultural management and services Project (Icr) WB SSA Indian Ocean Is Mauritius P001906

Bas-Cheliff Irrigation Project (PCR) WB NA North Algeria P004892

Cheliff Irrigation Project (ICR) WB NA North Algeria P004913

Irrigation Engineering Project (ICR) WB NA North Algeria P004922

West Mitidja Irrigation Project (ICR) WB NA North Algeria P004929

Sahara Regional Development Project (ICR) WB NA North Algeria P004938

Nile Delta Drainage Project I (PCR) WB NA North Egypt P004983

Upper Egypt Drainage I Project (PPAR & PCR) WB NA North Egypt P004985

Upper Egypt Drainage II Project (PPAR & PCR) WB NA North Egypt P004998

Nile Delta Drainage II Project (PPAR & PCR) WB NA North Egypt P005002

New Land Development Project (PCR) WB NA North Egypt P005028

Irrigation pumping Stations Rehabilitation project (PCR) WB NA North Egypt P005039

Drainage V Project (ICR) WB NA North Egypt P005052

National drainage project (ICR) WB NA North Egypt P005146

Second Pumping Stations Rehabilitation Project (ICR) WB NA North Egypt P005149

Matruh Resource Management Project (ICR) WB NA North Egypt P005153

Third Pumping stations Rehabilitation Project (PAD) WB NA North Egypt P041410

Second National Drainage Project (PAD) WB NA North Egypt P045499

Third social fund for Development Project (PAD) WB NA North Egypt P052705

Channel maintenance Project(ICR) WB NA North Egypt P005060

Rharb Sebou Irrigation Project WB NA North Morocco P005355

Sebou II Development Project WB NA North Morocco P005365

Souss Groundwater Project WB NA North Morocco P005370

Doukkala I Irrigation Project WB NA North Morocco P005372

Doukkala II Irrigation Project WB NA North Morocco P005378

Small and Medium-scale Irrigation Project WB NA North Morocco P005405

Large Scale Irrigation Improvement Project WB NA North Morocco P005418

Second Small and Medium Scale Irrigation Project WB NA North Morocco P005425

Second Large Scale Irrigation Improvement Project WB NA North Morocco P005462

Second Agricultural Sector Investment Loan WB NA North Morocco P005493

Irrigation Rehabilitation Project WB NA North Tunisia P005616

Sidi Salem Multipurpose Project WB NA North Tunisia P005623

Southern Irrigation Project WB NA North Tunisia P005634

Medjerda/Nebhana Irrigation Development Project WB NA North Tunisia P005644

Central Tunisia Irrigation Project WB NA North Tunisia P005649

Irrigation Management Improvement Project WB NA North Tunisia P005661

Gabes Irrigation Project WB NA North Tunisia P005665

National Rural Finance Project WB NA North Tunisia P005720

Agricultural Sector Investment Loan WB NA North Tunisia P005721

Agricultural Sector Investment Loan II WB NA North Tunisia P050418

Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Project (TCR) WB SSA South Mozambique P002148

Emergency Drought Recovery and mitigation Project (ICR) WB SSA South Zimbabwe P003330

Niena Dionkele Rice Development Project WB SSA Sudano-Sahel Burkina Faso P000258

Sategui-Deressia Irrigation Project WB SSA Sudano-Sahel Chad P000486

Lake Chad Polders Project WB SSA Sudano-Sahel Chad P000490

Mopti Rice II Project (PCR) WB SSA Sudano-Sahel Mali P001699

Office Du Mali consolidation Project (ICR) WB SSA Sudano-Sahel Mali P001718

Mopti Rice Project (PPAR) WB SSA Sudano-Sahel Mali P001686

Gorgol Engineering Project (PPAR) WB SSA Sudano-Sahel Mauritania P001817

Gorgol Noir Irrigation Project (PCR) WB SSA Sudano-Sahel Mauritania P001826

41

Small Scale Irrigation Project (PCR) WB SSA Sudano-Sahel Mauritania P001832

Irrigation Project (PCR & PPAR) WB SSA Sudano-Sahel Niger P001947

Irrigation Rehabilitation Project (PCR) WB SSA Sudano-Sahel Niger P001958

Pilot private irrigation Project (ICR) WB SSA Sudano-Sahel Niger P001994

River Polders Project (PPAR) WB SSA Sudano-Sahel Senegal P002282

Debi-Lampsar Irrigation Project (PCR) WB SSA Sudano-Sahel Senegal P002300

Irrigation technical assistance Project (PCR) WB SSA Sudano-Sahel Senegal P002324

Fourth Irrigation Project (ICR) WB SSA Sudano-Sahel Senegal P002343

Farahaane Irrigation Rehabilitation Project WB SSA Sudano-Sahel Somalia P002466

Reseires Irrigation Project WB SSA Sudano-Sahel Sudan P002553

Rahad Irrigation Project (PPAR) WB SSA Sudano-Sahel Sudan P002559

New halfa irrigation Rehabilitation Project (PCR) WB SSA Sudano-Sahel Sudan P002578

Blue Nile pump schemes Rehabilitation Project (PCR) WB SSA Sudano-Sahel Sudan P002581 White Nile Pump schemes Rehabilitation Project (PCR & PPAR) WB SSA Sudano-Sahel Sudan P002582

Gezira Rehabilitation Project (ICR) WB SSA Sudano-Sahel Sudan P002587

Agricultural Sector Investment Project WB SSA West Ghana P000961

National Fadama Development Project (ICR) WB SSA West Nigeria P002148

*The shaded projects were reviewed and analyzed by the Planning and Implementation component. About seven IFAD assisted projects and four or five more from ADB will be added to the data set being analyzed. To compare with Asia projects, some WB funded projects in Asia are included. The about 144 projects from East, South East and South Asia used in the initial analyses will be increased as more project data are encoded.

42

Annex 2. Trends and Opportunities for Investment in Agricultural Water Management in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Collaborative Program --

Pretoria Workshop Proceedings and Key Agreements 8-9 October 2004

Attendance: ADB Tefera Woudeneh IFAD Ed Heinemann Tony Peacock (Eastern & Southern

Africa poverty case studies) ILRI Don Peden (Ag water & Livestock) WB Ijsbrand de Jong Salah Darghouth *P&I refers to the Planning and Implementation study component; H&E is the health and environment component.

FAO (via teleconference) Jake Burke (demand study) IWMI*

Eline Boelee (H&E) Arlene Inocencio (Cost & Private Sector) Abdul Kamara (West Africa poverty

cases) Douglas Merrey (P&I and Cost studies) Sylvie Morardet (P&I) Cliff Mutero (H&E) Frits Penning de Vries (Private Sector) Dominique Rollin (Cost case studies) Hilmy Sally (P&I, Private Sector and

Cost) Jetrick Seshoka (P&I) Barbara van Koppen (West Africa

poverty cases)

43

DAY 1 09:00 am - 6:00 pm Morning Session Chair: Ijsbrand Rapporteur: Hilmy Opening Participants Introduction 1. Introduction - DOUG Doug: Original idea was purely internal meeting of project team. Hence presentations etc may not all be refined; work in progress. Meant to be a creative, collegial discussion Workshop Objectives • Share preliminary key findings & recommendations with each other • Brainstorm on key messages for investors, government • Identify gaps to be filled & how to do this in the limited time available • Next steps and time table to complete the different components ADB contract milestones: Case study reports in October; Full component reports by November; Draft synthesis December. Tefera: If expected results are not achieved, then ADB could consider extension in time frame Doug: May not necessarily be desirable from IWMI side – time and human resource implications 2. Feedback on Literature Review 2.1 TEFERA Report provides good overview of issues & challenges related to the sector

1. Internal peer review by Bank underway 2. Bank comments due shortly 3. Need to focus on major issue of under-development in Africa: e.g., less than 4% of

water resources utilized; NEPAD CAADP infrastructure linkages; subsistence rainfed farming

4. Balance between immediate poverty reduction objective & long term goals of sustainable development

5. What is the key issue -- ABSENCE of investments or DECLINE in investment? 6. Are we likely to achieve Collaborative Program (CP) goals? E.g. not enough attention

to rainfed agriculture P&I • Closer look at program & sector wide approach • Is PMU approach a failure? • Impact of Donor reforms – policy, strategy review & changes needed?

44

Private Sector • Not clear WHO is the private sector? Private Sector seems to be focusing only on the farmer. This seems to be too narrow a view.

H&E • Are current EIA approaches amenable to poverty reduction objectives? • Need to make better distinction between formal & informal Poverty Reduction • This is our over-arching goal. • Need clarity about Pro-poor IWRM – is this a new concept? Isn’t IWRM itself aimed at optimizing social, econ, needs?

• Is rapid assessment methodology an innovative approach? It seems to be presented an end in itself!

Cost • What do we mean by irrigation cost? • How is high cost related to benefits? Gaps • Rationale for case studies – more comprehensive approach needed Need to include examples of successes as well as failures •

What is/are innovative approach(es) emerging from the CP• ? • Linkages between themes need to be better developed • What is the plan for the remaining components? 2.2 SALAH

nges in WB: Lending for water for food (irrigation & drainage) has picked up

Need to do careful analysis of Water for Food Strategy in Africa for WB – WB initiative to

We need to compare results and achievements against the TOR of the study.

Lots of issues have been raised/identified. But how to filter those that are related to

Need also to identify the Opportunities (for agricultural. water investments).

Often the conclusion/recommendation is the need for further research (e.g. H&E). Maybe

Poverty focus is fundamental and appropriate. But there is often a bias to highlight the

• Ongoing chasignificantly. From $340 M (average over past 5 years) to $760 M this year. But lending to Africa is not following this trend. Hence the CP will hopefully provide some answers to WB mgt.

•

be launched soon. Hence WB has strong interest in the CP and its components.

•

•

agricultural water – how to prioritize?

•

•

useful to IWMI but not necessarily for WB.

•

informal, small-scale as the most suitable approaches to achieve poverty reduction. But the potential role of medium and large scale schemes (e.g. Office du Niger, Mali) should not be neglected. Don’t such schemes also contribute to poverty reduction?

45

• ment, O&M, and rehabilitation? Be clear about what we are covering in the studies and what we are not

2Questions about methodology of studies. Hence concerns whether the recommendations are

g and based on real hard evidence? e.g. in P&I component there is reference

• ut this is not necessarily the case in the other studies. Recommendations must be founded on firm evidence.

• ely reflect the contents. e,g, H&E is very good. Private Sector – maybe a disconnect between Executive Summary &

• e recommendations have high degree of operationability. e.g. recommendation about the need for micro-finance needs more meat and substance.

•

Present write-up

•

nd of scale in these

•

nt

•

le irrigation development is less costly than large scale!

The reports are a valiant attempt to come to grips with a broad & complex subject at is not clear is the PURPOSE of this report? This has not been communicated up

t, farmer etc?? Hence need to tie down

• d MDGs, PRSP. e.g. Poverty needs to be defined in terms of MDG (e.g. dollar a day). Investment mechanism is via PRSPs/National

How about the whole subject area of irrigation system manage

.3 IJSBRAND

•

really compellinto interviews of ADB staff on P&I. This is interesting but how to establish link between staff opinions and successes/failures of irrigation projects

Cost study is doing a lot of data/number crunching. B

Pay particular attention to Executive Summaries so that they accurat

report itself.

Make sure th

IWRM component is like an overview of demand management – we had decided to avoid this thrust. TOR focused on Supply mgt. What is new from this study?seems to be focused on Demand Management – why?

Private Sector approach is very interesting. But recommendations need to be revisited. Leasing? Rice processing/Milling? Agro-processing? Cf. current shift/treoperations. The matrix of sectors and capitals is interesting n and is quite comprehensive.

Livestock – The basic premise for the CP is that investments in Agricultural water in Africa are not enough. So the H&E and Livestock components must also identify investmeopportunities in agricultural. water. But explicit water focus seems to be lacking in Livestock component.

Cost – What happened to all the data that was collected/compiled etc? Develop ‘one liners’ e.g. small sca

.4 ED 2

•

• But whfront. Hence the contents come across as a series of discrete, disparate studies.

• There is lack of precision of what exactly it is we are talking about – agricultural water management is a vast subject covering a whole range of issues. So, we need to specify is what sort of agricultural water are we talking about?

• Definition of private sector is not clear – what are we talking about? At what stage of the production-marketing process are we focusing? Investment – whose investments? Donor, governmen•

all this to be precise about what we are talking about. Present development architecture is built aroun

46

development plans. Hence there needs to be better recognition/awareness of this in the reports.

• Livestock is a bit of an outlier. We need to highlight livestock use of water within agriculture use of water as a whole. Discussion is generic and conceptual and so far not very operational. Capacity• Building has not been treated sufficiently in the reports – e.g. CB for government

•

2.5 DISCUSSIONS

d drainage?

posed to look at trends & opportunities for investments in irrigation

any

dations seem to be oriented towards small-scale schemes.

project management. Is a major focus area for IFAD. Managing for IMPACT! Next steps – if further work is required. It must be very focused. Cf. Tiffen quote in Private Sector

• Land tenure security has not been treated – cf. some evidence that yields on land where there is land tenure conflict are 30-40% less.

Don: Need clarification on statement about lack of emphasis on rainfed and the later omments about focusing on irrigation anc

sbrand: Study is supIj

Tefera: We need to take a broader view; we need to factor in possible contribution from

infed side as well. ra

alah: Water is a key component of UN Hunger Task Force Report – Seeds, Market, Land. SLand tenure is central to agriculture performance in Africa. Yes, seeds etc. are not included here. But we need to then carefully say what we and what we are not dong in this project. Jake: We need clarity on targets and scale of what we are focusing on. Water may not explicitly figure in poverty reduction strategies in Africa, lot of private sector investments in agriculture/irrigation happen outside PRSPs etc. Many agriculture policies are focused on nputs (extension/research/seeds) rather than outputs (processing/marketing). Mi

government irrigation agencies do not capture data on private sector contributions to irrigation. Ed: Overall goal is not irrigation but poverty reduction. This is the mandate of all the partners and organizations around the table. We are not interested in irrigation per se; it needs to contribute to poverty reduction. Doug: IWMI is just completing a comprehensive study for the Asian Development Bank. It is clear that irrigation has had a huge impact on poverty reduction in Asia. So, the challenges to identify what kind of irrigation how can we better target this better etc. Salah: But what is in the CP project reports concerning Poverty Reduction? The study so far does not address the subject adequately. . Planning & Implementation 3

Presentor: Sylvie

iscussions: DTefera:

es and recommen• Many of the issu

47

• The point about harmonization of donor approaches is a good one. This is something the nity is working towards.

bank procedures are also being reviewed

entation is increasingly done

d for capacity building.

•

ard decentralization is already happening. Maybe what is needed is to address how

e

(1) capture practical ideas and endations of various actors; and (2) analyze whole investment process as a system to .

TCw stments in Africa?

D take cognizance of overall development architecture – PRSPS, SWAPs etc. No

donor commu• Internal• Changing from classical project to long-term program-support approach, are we capturingthis? PMU vs line agency approach to project is another issue.

Ed • Are governments responsible for implementation? In actual fact, government is responsible for the MANAGEMENT of the implementation; actual implemby consultants and private sector. These are new challenges. Reinforces the point about the nee

• What is the basis for supporting a given irrigation program? The point about interest, opportunities is important Project vs Program. Linkages between Investment & Policy Dialogue are increasingly important in defining priorities

• Supervision during project implementation is critical. Personnel changes during implementation are a problem.

SALAH: • Need for focus, need to be very selective. Need to demonstrate added value of our work. • We have to take it as a given, that the project does fit into the overall macro-policy priorities etc.

• Trend towsome of these changes are actually affecting P&I. Coming up with something that really adds value is a real challenge because donor staff• are already aware of these issues and are grappling with them on a daily basis. We need to be realistic about what the team can achieve with the resources available.

jsbrand I

Concern about methodology/questionnaire. Not clear how this will allow identifying cause-ffect relationships (“compelling evidence?”). Implications of trend towards budget support rrangements on P&I. a

Doug: • Remarks & suggestions are very useful. They do highlight areas needing further work etc. e.g. success or otherwise of project management unit (PMU) approach; shift from project support to program support. Two thrusts to the study:recommidentify

• What are the changes to incentive structures etc. that may help improve P&I?

efera: an the team come up with some innovative approaches that could add value to agricultural. ater inve

ENeed to “apple pie” recommendations – be precise.

48

4. Health & Environment

iscussions: efera:

upply & irrigation is good. ADB initiative underway - RWSS pacts & Poverty links are unclear. Does our approach enable us to measure

and integrate this into the planning process? the costs of measures to mitigate H&E impacts? Beneficiaries? Donor?

ment?

E

hich governments ents already have

grams for building clinics, roads etc. Real issue maybe in looking for ways to coordinate

•

•

s -- focus of H&E component ight synergies & complementarities rather than trade-offs

Possible contribution could

:

e dams [Eline: Health data are not reliable; how many people at local level k treatment at local clinics?]

L have not been addressed. Again if the

C obust enough to capture informal and community

sues.

Presentor: Eline DT• Integrating drinking water s• Environmental im

• Who bears Govern

• Compare costs mitigating measures to costs of NOT implementing them!

d • Need to demonstrate that irrig investments lead to improved health & environment consequences

• Water for rural development – not enough account take of the way in wmanage sector programs (e.g. for health, water supply, ..) . So governmproagricultural water investments with these other initiatives.

Salah Good choice of examples – different agro-ecological zones etc. Need to get away from the collision course between agricultural water development and environment. We should recognize that agricultural water development could impact on H&E but we should seek ways of mitigating adverse effect

• Highl• Gap: No reference to EMP (Environmental Management Plan).be what should be the content of an EMP in the context of agricultural water in Africa?

• Lets not go in search of problems needing further study!

Tefera ADB will continue to finance large projects in Africa e.g. dams. Consistent with NEPAD strategy of developing water & food security. ADB needs help to internalize how to address

& E issues. H Ijsbrand• Objective must not be to identify gaps in knowledge but to make operational recommendations for agricultural water investments

• BF maybe a big missed opportunity in exploiting data available on health statistics with the data on storagactually see

Salah:

arge scale schemes like Gezira, Office du Niger etc.focus is on small-scale schemes, then let us indicate this up-front.

liff: Current methodologies used are not ris

49

5. Private Sector Presentor: Frits Discussions: Tefera:

ow would an individual with a million dollars fit into the framework? f public and private sector investments does not come out.

We are here interested in irrigation for poverty reduction, not commercial investment issing are out-growers like the sugar case

Inclusion of micro SMEs – shouldn’t we include small manufacturers, fertilizer suppliers re the circumstances under which small farmers are wiling to invest their own

ourage farmers

nvest their own money? upport

•

•

nt WB RD strategy – ‘Reaching the rural poor’: we need to look at this.

t make sense. ied to suit the

ow to harness the huge magnitude of remittances to invest in agricultural water?

HComplementarity oEd: •

• What is perhaps m•

• What aresources in irrigation and what could be done to facilitate this process?

• Formal schemes – what are the situations with respect to markets etc that encto i

• Private sector investment in agricultural water per se vs. private sector investment in sservices, equipment manufacturers, input/input suppliers.

Tefera: What can an individual farmer in Ethiopia invest other than his own labor? Wouldn’t he be normally too poor? Lack of clarity on WHO is the private sector – need to strike balance of poverty reduction objective and long term economic growth. Need to link to NEPAD strategy which provides for explicit role for the private sector

Jake: Need to differentiate between really poor farmer from emerging commercial farmer and (large scale) commercial farmer. Being organized is an essential factor for small farmers. Can we meet MDG goals through small scale producers only or should we also support large commercial farmers who provide jobs?

alah: S• Curre• Key issue for irrigation investments in Africa – markets. • Fertiliser – how to get these to irrigating farmers? Key for success of irrigated agriculture • Micro-finance – WB is heavily involved in facilitating this • What is the role of private sector in irrigation system management? Frits: Making (partial) recommendations about water or fertilizer by themselves do noThese are complex issues that by themselves need to be described and qualifspecific conditions like crop varieties, soil types; the constraints are different in different situations. Large commercial farmer has not been included due to poverty reduction focus. HS: H Ijsbrand:

50

• The matrix is a good entry point. Need better categorization of who is the private sector. Re-look at vertical axis – who is private sector?

• Incentives and policy environment to support private investments (including commercial stor)

oug: need to better exploit Asian experiences. E.g. Narmada project in Gujarat where

b

Feed more explicit feedback from Salah about specific issues, questions that need to be

ed. So that the team can address these as best.

stock

iscussions:

that livestock does contribute to poverty reduction, it is not clear how this component contributes to promoting agricultural water investments, which is the

f this CP. pportunities for investments?

Why is livestock not treated as a market question (incl. fodder crops)?

v

ter management for

s: increasing livestock product demand, livestock impact assessment (possible conflict

inve DMaybe wemain canal is built by State and the farmers (associated in organizations/groups) do the

alance infrastructure, and “induced investment” strategies to support FMIS

rits: Naddress Afternoon Session Chair: Ed Rapporteurs: Eline/Sylvie 6. LivePresentor: Don DIjsbrand: • Although there is no doubt

main focus o• Fodder crops – o•

Frits: While the slide about separating animals from water where people are concerned may be

alid, this is not true in the case of fish.

Salah: Shouldn’t we extract from the study what we can learn about wagriculture? Livestock is a big user of water but we have not addressed this?a

Tony: What are people willing to pay for fodder as compared to growing it? Salah: Focus must be on the opportunities for agricultural water investments. Presently, there are opportunities for large investments in agricultural water. So then, how do we incorporate

vestock development in these projects? li Ed:

alking about very different livestock prod systems in the same sentence, confusing; two setsTof issuebetween livestock holders and irrigators should be part of this assessment). Doug:

51

Economic returns of maize for food and livestock (integrated) are much more important than e for food only – i.e., enhances value per cubic meter of water.

for integration.

Methodological issues for livestock-water impact assessment ent in water has an impact on the relationship between crop & livestock owners.

Large-scale vs small-scale systems: ision of drinking water facilities

to the tween

domestic production, the plus or minus in any one commodity is then l trade account. The Rosegrant analysis can use this as a baseline

heck the impacts of various food policies] t by horticultural market ‘maturing’? [Jake: Market for product is becoming

phisticated but initial expansion of areas under precision irrigation may be slowing

h and production separated between urban & rural areas? [Jake: No]

output yet on IFPRI study. So the al for integration etc. will have to be viewed at that point. But how this will mesh with

d-based picture me growth. The

r food and fibre is essentially non-negotiable and has to be accounted for by

maiz Tefera: Major irrigation development projects will be in livestock areas; hence need Don: • Bring out latent demand for animal products; can be integrated into agricultural water investment projects

•

• Investm• Livestock also contributes to poverty reduction •

• Prov• Livestock interactions w.r.t. catchment management: potential conflicts, policy issues

7. Regional Demand Presentor: Jake Discussions: Salah: Any links/coordination with Mark Rosegrant’s work? [Jake: They are complementaryxtent that the demand study is policy neutral, simply looking at the balance bee

domestic demand and lobadealt with in a g

to cagainst whichhat is meanW

more sodown.] Tony: Is commercialization the only way out – seems as if this is something we would like to avoid! Is this correct? [Jake: It was a rhetorical question. Clearly there is room for all types small-scale, large-scale, and commercial, in trying to close gaps] Frits: s growtI

Ijsbrand: The IWMI-IFPRI study and the FAO study are both a little different from the other components in the CP. What must be the storyline to bring together this component and the FPRI component in the synthesis [Jake: Not seen any draft I

potentithe other components is an issue. The demand study offers an objective, trenf commodity demand and production on the basis of population and incoo

demand fodomestic production and imports. The question is how the low self-sufficiency ratio countries are going to deal with this, irrigation, rainfed or imports? The demand study tries to highlight where the opportunities for irrigated production are likely to emerge.

52

Tefera: Does this analysis address issue of food security at national level and food self-sufficiency at household level? [Jake: The supply user accounts simply look at the balance of domestic production against domestic nutritional requirements and illustrate the gaps which have be met by imports, so yes.] Ed:

point of report is that food self-sufficiency is a policy goal for countries in the region.

d what has to be imported to meet calorific requirements without aying whether this is ‘good’ or ‘bad’. ]

d 2030. How the markets are allowed respond is ltimately a question of government policy and economic ‘connection’ and AT2030 makes

nd performance only]

in future to focus on cereals and fodder – consider econ viability? poverty

resentor: Arlene

:

SA costs are 2.5 times the costs elsewhere. So how can irrigation costs in SSA be no more xpensive than in other parts of the world? [This result will be explained properly in the full

efera: ring like with like? Has the proper disaggregation been done? [Yes, e.g. power,

been deducted wherever applicable]

on about reducing share of national counterpart funds leading to lower unit costs is n interesting one. [this is not equivalent to total domestic investment per se. But is the share

tic contribution to WB and ADB projects]

them.

Starting Food security, yes. But maybe this is no longer true in the case of food self-sufficiency. [Jake:This is not the starting point. The study is policy neutral to the extent that it is just an accounting exercise. The self-sufficiency ratios simply indicate what is produced through domestic production ans Ch 5 relation between markets & irrigation is interesting. Barbara: To what extent does the analysis take into account markets, market demands? [Jake: There are no alternative scenarios analyzed; this makes a projection of the production required to meet calorific requirements in 2015 anuexpert assumptions about this on the basis of past trends a Irrigation reduction? All irrigation must be commercially oriented. 8. Cost P DiscussionsTony: Sereport.] TAre we compaetc hasCosts of more recent projects are higher because better sites are already exploited – is this true for SSA because irrigation development started rather late in SSA. Conclusiaof domes Ijsbrand: This is an exciting study. Options for reducing costs are identified – large projects etc.; and statistical analyses identify causes and give ideas on how to address

53

Frits Maybe we are not fully capturing the potential benefits from the very small projects e.g. supplementary irrigation and micro irrigation. If we did, the shape of graph would be different

re careful attention to report writing. [Noted. This should be the next stage after finalizing analyses]

e are some key variables that are critical – start time, time/cost overrun etc.

Include smaller (e.g. IFAD) schemes to increase sample size. [Where to get comparable Check with Tony]

D perhaps a

to show some figures on this in the

•

t trend is to push for greater proportion of national counterpart funds

E

on cost vs sustainability; size vs manageability; cost vs benefit (ERR). study with clear

ore recognition/credit to the partners of the CP (GENERAL COMMENT & NOT

iscussions

• gy approach (Barbara’s presentation) – good for research but

Not convinced about need to go outside irrigation towards IWRM to address poverty This study should tell us if irrigation has an impact on poverty or not.

Salah: • Important study. Deserves support to bring this to completion. Potentially important impact. • Nothing of what was presented is included in the report. Hence, need mo

• Ther• But the analysis about national counterpart contribution must be solid & convincing because WB policy is to increase share of national contributions.

•

data? • Must take note that there is now the phased approach, especially for larger projects. •

oug: • SSA situation about lack of supporting infrastructure (roads, schools …) is(legitimate) expense that leads to higher costs. [This has to be substantiated by data. Initial figures seen did not support this claim but should be able final report.] Check against evidence from Asia that shows that investment in rehabilitation is preferable.

fera: Te

• Curren• Rehabilitation costs more expensive than new construction? [shown to be true in some cases in Mali]

d: • Unit costs in absolute terms in SSA are getting higher over time; this is a worrying trend.there are more high-cost schemes in SSA compared to other regions;

• TensionHypoth• esis on why the statistical analysis is being done is not clear. [framework and methodology but skipped in the presentation to focus on results]

jsbrand: I• Give mFOR COST STUDY ONLY)

• Explicitly highlight boundaries of study e.g. focusing only on costs & not benefits too

9. Poverty Presentors: Tony, Barbara, Abdul

D Salah: Has concerns with methodolonot for practical purposes.

•

reduction.

54

• It is not making a convincing case for investments in agricultural water from the point of rty reduction. It is not building on IWMI’s own work.

We need to make the argument to reverse the decreasing trends in lending for irrigation and ltural water.

•

T

d as part of the study? Need decision on what we are to do with it.

e.g. Lipton & others…). But if it is necessary to re-establish this case, it can be owever, we thought the need is for a rapid methodology and indicators to measure

uction impact of ral water investments & relative returns to agricultural water investments compared

pump sales (Abdul) is rather damning! Surely if the product is

•

lly active poor.

figures from EW far should donors go in the community to target the poor? But take into account the

S t at what cost?

se pumps themselves are not reliable (no 2nd & 3rd

oug:

view of pove•

agricu• We need advice when designing a project for poverty reduction, what should we do?

Ijsbrand: Is there evidence that irrigation reduces poverty? How to measure these impacts?• Need to show that returns to investment in agricultural water are higher than investing in other sectors.

efera:

• Are we treating poverty as defined in MDGs? e.g. less than $1/day? Proposed methodology is not very clear – is this being used in the study? Or is it being •

develope Barbara: • The case that agricultural investments have a positive impact on poverty reduction has been clearly made (done. Hpoverty reduction.

Tefera: We need to re-state the facts & make convincing argument re. poverty red•

agricultuto other sectors.

• But there is data and analysis for number of case studies that could help us make this case. However, this is not a sector-wide study.

d: E• Slide of subsequent decline of useful, they should continue sales?

• Ownership of treadle pumps – individual or group? IFAD’s approach to targeting varies by region but it is not necessarily poorest of poor but rather economica

alah: S

• Check on reliability of• Howdynamics within the community.

Ijsbrand: Market linkages (cf. Tony presentation)

ure, irrigation reduces poverty bu Hilmy: Decline in EW pump sales – is this becautime buyers??). Is there evidence that some other market player has taken over from EW?

D

55

Data prese(Abdul’s).

nted shows that fertilizer inputs are less, although areas cultivated are increasing

AY 2 09:00 am - 12:00 nn g Session Chair: Ed

RM/Basin

Discussions:

re. EWS–FAO drought management system Also, use WFP-NEPAD report on food security On deforestation, recognize that this is often due to energy demands and maybe recognized

s solar energy can help (technologies getting cheaper) rage – also include conservation agriculture

NEPAD and WB are developing a no. of strategies, incl. water beginning early 2005. A land PAD with the involvement of ICRAF, IWMI

and WB. lish links to CA synthesis in 2005

•

2004.

ok at experiences from outside Africa (Asia, Latin America,…); make clear links to

illustrations (possible to incl. Ruaha, Ewaso N’giro, Olifants) Consider including an ongoing study on storage & poverty linkages in Burkina Faso (supply

ent pathway)

DMorninRapporteurs: Eline/Sylvie 10. IWPresentor: Hilmy

Frits: • Refer to relevant other work•

•

alternatives such a• On building up sto•

management strategy is being developed for NE

• Estab Tefera: • This component could be good ‘chapeau’ to set the scene on agricultural water with respect to IWRM.

• But need better links to poverty reduction? • This may also perhaps a good link between NEPAD’s infrastructure & agriculture program (i.e. water & food security) and could ‘set the scene’ for the CP On Transboundary issues, ADB is assisting NEPAD to develop interventions in 7 river basins; workshop planned in SA in Nov Also consider WWAP work •

• Also lopoverty reduction

Ijsbrand: • Basic purpose of this component was to identify constraints to agricultural water development in IWRM context

• Also, how to make some operational recommendations in this regard • What is the methodology used? What are the facts and figures used to support the recommendations?

• But recognize that it is not possible to generate data and do further work without adequate resources Use case studies as •

•

managem• Include reference to IUCN study in Tanzania with respect to storage-environmental flows

Doug:

56

• Lot of data is available from outside Africa. But question is how to get the resources (time, money) to do the analysis and synthesis

runching’ and data-supported studies

B

o unpack impact of IWRM driven reforms in water policies, institutions, legislation on

rovide analysis & evidence to challenge the conventional view that agricultural

resentations:

• Dinar-Saleth studies for WB (mentioned by Ijsbrand) may not be the best example of ‘number-c

• Emphasize under-development of water resources

arbara: • Problem in Africa is not necessarily a physical scarcity of water but under-development Data availability may be a problem •

• Need tagricultural water development

Don: • Employ available spatial (and other) data to better present results, recommendations

ony: TNeed to pwater use is wasteful and low value.

11. Key points/messages from the p

verall StudyO - -

rainfed vs. irrigated agriculture

borative

tion on poverty, es of underdevelopment

a value of a dollar invested in water related to a dollar invested in other sectors? lf but also efficiency question; problem

of mpacts of irrigation vs. other investments (tried in Tan

n mind that WB, ADB, IFAD are development banks, everything should be rele

eral agencies hance irrigation

priv

- - es that will assist internal policy strategies

Pla

large scale/ small scale - identify the boundaries of what we are doing, the added value of the Colla

Program- definition of private sector - methodological issues, what evidence are we providing to support recommendations

and conclusions? - what can we do with methodological contribu- links to MDG, PRSPs poverty reduction; issu- - poverty reduction is an important goal in itse

lack of data to assess relative izania)

- we don’t want apple pie recommendations, recommendations that say nothing new; keeping i

vant to the roles we play - investments opportunities, innovative ways of investing in water for agriculture, that

can increase - recommendations on investments for governments, NGOs, bilat- we want to work with government on a policy regime that will en

ate investments - linkages between invest in water develop and invest in rural develop

poverty reduction, food security, economic growth outcom

- crucial role of M & E in current environment of program budget support

nning & Implementation: - narrowed operational focus

57

- more evidence on link between P&I and successes and failures, some degree of quantification, use ERR for quantification

- ents and policy dialogue level

ct cycle s (supporting project achievements,

foc h? even in a program approach you can have a dialogue with government and continuous

Priv

- PMU vs line agencies - new development architecture: SWAps, PRSPs, budget support

project/program; investm- focus on promoting, strengthening management capacities at country - challenge of bringing country strategy into the proje- strengthening supervision capacity of Banks/donor

us on the real goals of the projects) how to build that in a program approac-

supervision - crucial for that is M&E

ate Sector Participation - show that PS can be very important

haracterization of private sec

-

- rge-scale irrigation ing with government on how to help PS invest, and help

directly private sector invest, if we want to take that on board it would change the scope of

on (should built context) een PS investing in irrigation and private sector in the overall

envd incentives that governments can institute to help private sector

inv-

ic and private investments

- do’s and don’ts - fill the matrix; show practical ways to use it - identifying gaps - framework: have another look at the vertical axis, how to c

tor actors, functional for our purpose work on executive summary

- leasing; opportunities for small scale agro-processing role of la

- 2 roles of donors: work

this component - overarching vision is poverty reducti- distinction betw

ironment of agriculture - pre-conditions an

estments and ensure that this will help poor people: reduction of transaction costs, role of commercial investors

- complementarity between publ Health and environment - concrete recommendations on how to improve EIA and HIA procedures, explain what

we mean by inter-sectoral collaboration, including capacity building linking to oth- er components and to poverty

- ment, health and water management to improve impacts on pov

- cts assessments in ADB

ivestock

- include data on large scale irrigation schemes - provide data on costs of mitigating measures versus costs of doing nothing

how integrating environerty reduction methodology now not robust enough, need to be improved

- social and environmental impa L

ated growth in demand for animal production (and fodder crops) and how

- impacts of irrigation dev

- Aspects of anticip irrigation can contribute methodological issues of livestock impact assessment (includingelopment on livestock owners)

58

- contribution of livestock to poverty reduction - drinking water facilities - catchment management

conflict betwee- n pastoralists systems and cultivation systems: policy issues that need atte

emand

ntion D

ood self-sufficiency or food security the objective of governments? The demand stud

rigation investments?)?

t lead automatically to policy prescriptions be commercially oriented?

Cos

- is fy simply looks at domestic demand versus domestic production, in this sense it is

deliberately ‘policy neutral’. - statement on irrigation in future to focus on cereals and fodder is questionable.

Economic viability (what kind of ir- food security to focus on poverty reduction - shortfall projections don’- should all irrigation must

ts - huge underdevelopment in SSA

ake clearer the issue on comparing likes with likes

- - ers are as they are (e.g. why rehabilitation in Africa is more

exp-

le technologies in the sample (problem of ava

on costs (can use ERR) apparently costs are escalating exponentially large projects less costly but less manageable: how much you can reduce costs? (i.e.,

ten ustainability)

Pov

- m- rehabilitation result did not show soft component as important

irrigation in SSA not more costly than elsewhere understanding why numbensive than in Asia, but this is not the case in new developments) consider gradual development approach (an option)

- use the IFAD case studies and the small-scailability of data and comparison of likes)

- make a comment on the fact that this study focus only- -

sions between capital costs and s- benefits related to costs - exchange rates as a determinant - quality of construction affects rehabilitation costs

erty Tony Peacock

report must focus on demonstrating - the poverty reduction impact and cost effe

lessons for enhancing both impacts and cos

investments with poverty reduction ition of poverty)

relation between poverty and IWRM, need for new water developments pacts on economic groups

pro-poor economic + IWRM in the synthesis een domestic water use and irrigation may not be addressed

ctiveness of investments - from this analysis it must derive operational

t effectiveness

Barbara Van Koppen - make the case for the relation of - make reference to the USD1/day line (MDGs defin- - im- - link betw

59

- no easy poverty reduction assessment method: need to review the literature and develop something new (socio economic stratification as basis for contribution for dev

- perational focus impact of large scale projects

y is not an input of the study in itself, should be applied

ed to do reported

to cross check)

IW

elopment of PSIA (?) methodology) importance of o

- - the methodolog Abdul Kamara - value of $ in irrigation compared to other options is beyond what we agre- income data needs to properly- reliability of data from Entreprise Works (need- steep decline in pumps (need to come with story) - fertilizers use (decline?)

RM - more links to poverty reduction - experience of other regions - methodology – how to make a compelling case - challenge conventional view of agriculture as low value, inefficient

of IWRM on institutional reform

resentor: Doug

ug:

d: suggested to put Methodology in an Annex.

n” on land tenure issues ug to do away with Theme approach or outline patterned on the themes

synthesis should be short. (there was a suggestion of 50 pages) e title

agreed with Ed to put methodology in an Annex sted to have an editorial committee to do the first draft (but the group later decided to

should not have “further research” in synthesis

ultative group and will have:

3. Martha Solomon – IWMI will pay for her $500 honorarium isenga – honorarium c/o IFAD, if any

- impacts 12. Synthesis report Outline Chair: Tefera P Discussions: DoForeword, e.g. by NEPAD Chair E- - should include better a “sectio- agreed with Do Ijsbrand: - - less grandios- - suggeask IWMI do the first draft) - - there was an agreement to keep the Core cons

1. Nuhu Hatibu – honorarium c/o IFAD, if any 2. Amadou Diallo Allahoury – Ijsbrand will pay for his honorarium of $500

4. Ch

60

5. I K Musa - WB will pay for his honorarium? Justification for including Musa given by Tony: (a) none of the other proposed

irrigation (not sure about Diallo) and our

rrigation country; (c) Musa has very good understanding of the d) without him or some other West

African, the East: West ratio would be 3:1.

13. KE Remarks

members has any experience of large scaleCP is certainly not intended to be biased towards small-scale; (b) Nigeria is a relatively important iopportunities and constraints; and (

MAJOR AGREEMENTS:

Y DATES WHAT Responsibility Process 31 To be approved

by WG/SC by 30 Oct. 2004 Synthesis IWMI- Doug

Draft Outline Nov. 2004

30 Nov. 2004 SC approval of Synthesis Outline

WG/SC c/o Ijsbrand

Synthesis work to begin

31 Dec

Component reach the WG/SC reports; Tony

will include IWMI case studies in his

of overty cases

. 2004 Submission of Final draft

IWMI/IFAD/FAO 8 Reports to 8 separate

Reports

synthesis p

31 Jan. 2005 Final Draft

SC and WG c/o Ijsbrand

Review of

Reports for 8 components

28 Feb. 2005 ion of IWMI/IFAD/FAO Submission to

sharing with partners

FinalizatComponent reports

respective funding donors &

28 Feb. 2005 First draft Synthesis Report (SR)

IWMI team Submission to SC

20 Mar. 2005 Review of First Draft SR

WG/SC/Editorial Committee (EC)

ditorial committee members to be appointed by

MI to

he EC head/convenor will have to be decided;

MI will host EC members in

ria at time of work

E

WB, IFAD, ADB, FAO(?), IWappoint representative

W

Preto

T

I

15 Apr. 2005 Submission of Second DSR

raft group (CCG) and SC to

ment; /revise

IWMI Core consultative

review/comEC to edit

61

or rewrite if necessary

30 Apr. 2005 Review Second Draft SR

CCG, EC

30 May 2005 Submission of Third Draft

EC ed by ADB/FAO/

SR

To be review

IFAD/IWMI/WB; SC to clear/approve

30 June 2005 Final Synthesis Report

Professional Writer – to be commissioned by IWMI

14. Other WG Matters:

- Ijsbrand p in the Nov. 2-6 s Pre-conference in Addis

- Agreed to participate in the WB Water Week in M- Ijsbrand to send formal letters to CCG to ask interest and get commitment

ADDITIONAL Comments from Tony after the Workshop for confirmation by partners (sent 17 Oct. 2004):

) Poverty Reduction, Food Security and Economic Growth (As much for my own here seems to be some confusion about 'ag water development' (i.e.

rigation

to represent the grou FAO-Netherland

arch

(abenefit as for others) -Tir ), poverty reduction, food security, livelihoods and economic growth. I reiterate tha sas we i rigation subsector are concerned, our focus must clearly be on MDG 1, which is t r can and should contribute to sev l be sure that

ur interventions do not impact negatively on them), but MDG 1 is our main goal. This means at the CP is not concerned with, for example, projects for promoting gender equality or

e all know that poverty has several dimensions, but we need not concern ourselves with an

resources (particularly labor) to invest in irrigation and are therefore economically inactive (we have seen this from

t, a pointed out at our meeting, development efforts are guided today by the MDGs. So far n the ir

o e adicate extreme poverty and hunger. Obviously, weera of the other goals whilst attempting to achieve MDG 1 (and must certainly

othenvironmental sustainability for the sake of it (i.e. without irrigation). Wexamination of these right now, because documentation supporting the Millennium Declaration (e.g. the 2003 Human Development Report) tells us that we should measure extreme poverty in the single dimension of per capita income of less than USD1.00 per day - this being considered the minimum subsistence requirement (I know about all the PPP stuff, but we needn't worry about that for the time being). To put this in perspective, my guess is that in many of the countries we are working in, the majority of people in the rural areas are in extreme poverty as defined above. And just to reiterate what Ed had to say on this, the 'target group' does not have to be limited to the 'poorest of the poor'. Indeed, the latter often do not have the

62

oresult in no social stratum benefiting (apart, possibly, from the implementers). On the other hand, successful irrigation by relatively less poor social strata can provide major direct and indirect wage employment and incremental food supply opportunities for the poorest. However, we have to ensure that those of the poorest who want to participate directly are not excluded and that, in any case, projects do not negatively impact on them. Our report will provide some pointers on this. If we want to know how

ur case studies). Thus, limiting irrigation opportunities to the poorest of the poor alone can

t and how sustainable the increment is, (b) who has enefited from the project (in terms of those in extreme poverty), (c) how (direct participation

oreover, while poverty reduction generally results in economic growth, the latter does not

go very far with this CP by suggesting therwise, but whether you call that 'policy neutral' or not is another matter.

effective our projects have been in reducing poverty (as measured above) we need to establish (a) beneficiary incomes (cash/in-kind) without the project, with the projecbin irrigation, direct and indirect employment) and (d) in what numbers. We also need to know how cost effective these projects have been in terms of benefit-cost ratios, costs per beneficiary and cost per hectare, because we have to show that such projects are an equitable and sound investment. I think you will find that this is what the terms of reference for my part of the poverty study specify. For those who want to talk in terms of livelihoods, it should be fairly obvious that these are enhanced by poverty reduction. In other words, we expect incremental income to translate into enhanced livelihoods. As for hunger, I'm not sure how this target became separated from that of poverty reduction in MDG 1, since hunger is a dimension of poverty. However, at some stage in the early days of the CP we said that our overall objective was to catalyze increased investment in agricultural water development (i.e. irrigation) for poverty reduction, food security and economic growth. Although not spelt out, we never intended that food security should be interpreted as food self-sufficiency. The point was that while poverty reduction generally results in increased food security (and reduced hunger), it does not have to result in increased food self-sufficiency. Furthermore, food self-sufficiency does not necessarily lift people out of extreme poverty. Mnecessarily lead to the former, and it is clear that our IFI partners wish to avoid 'ruthless' growth that makes the poor poorer. It should also be clear that investment in uneconomic irrigation projects for welfare purposes - e.g. for local food supply - certainly does not lead to economic growth. To summarize, therefore, and to borrow from Bill Clinton, "It's poverty reduction, stupid". And poverty reduction in our context means cost-effective and sustainable irrigation for increased incomes. Our job is to show that this is a realistic ambition. (b) Demand Study - Turning to Jake's comment that there is room for all types of irrigation - i.e. small-scale, large-scale, and commercial - I hope it will be obvious from what I have said above that there is no room at all for any irrigation that is not commercial (in the sense of being profitable and sustainable). We shall not o

63