Download-manuals-general-final report

Government of India & Government of The Netherlands
DHV CONSULTANTS &
DELFT HYDRAULICS with
HALCROW, TAHAL, CES,
ORG & JPS
Final Report
June 2003
(IN032501)

Final Report (June 2003) ToC
Table of Contents
Executive Summary i
1 Introduction 1
2 Project background 3
2.1 Hydrological information need 3
2.2 Hydrological Information System prior to HP 5
2.3 Constraints 8
3 Objectives of the Hydrology Project 9
4 Technical Assistance 11
4.1 Objectives of the Technical Assistance 11
4.2 Phased implementation 12
4.3 Logical Framework for the HIS 13
4.4 Developing the concept of the HIS 13
4.5 Process approach 14
4.6 Process management 15
4.7 Impact of the HIDAP 18
4.8 Continuing support for institutional development 19
4.9 Institutionalisation of a sustainable HIS 20
4.10 Extension of the TA 23
5 Scope of activities 25
5.1 Assessing the need of users 25
5.2 Review and establishment of observation networks 26
5.3 Management of historical data 31
5.4 Data collection and sample analysis 31
5.5 Data processing, analysis and reporting 33
5.6 Data exchange 36
5.7 Data Storage and dissemination 37
5.8 Institutional and human resources development 39
5.9 Overseas training and study tours in the Hydrology Project 44
6 Achievements 47
6.1 General 47
6.2 Standardized systems, networks and procedures 47
6.3 Staffing 50
6.4 Human resources development 51
6.5 Institutional strengthening 53
6.6 Innovative R&D projects 56
6.7 HIS Management 56
6.8 Accelerated cessation of the TA 57
6.9 Consolidation of HP achievements 61
6.10 Further potential for capitalising on HIS 64

Final Report (June 2003) ToC
7 Lessons learned 66
7.1 Expectations 66
7.2 Benefits 66
7.3 Management in implementing agencies 67
7.4 Deadlines 67
7.5 Process approach 68
7.6 Approach to implementation 69
7.7 Procurement 70
7.8 Staffing 70
7.9 Training 71
7.10 Summing up 72
8 Staffing and financial aspects 74
8.1 Organisation of TA 74
8.2 Staff input 78
Annex 1 Description of HIS 82
Annex 2 Logical Framework Analysis 90
Annex 3 Catalogue of HIS Resources Data Base 96
Annex 4 Table of Contents of SW and GW Manuals 100
Annex 5 Equipment for which detailed specifications have been provided 108
Annex 6 Training Courses developed and organized 112
Annex 7 Training Modules prepared 114
Annex 8 Abbreviations 118

Final Report (June 2003) Page i
Executive Summary
Objectives of the Hydrology Project and of the Technical Assistance
The development objective of the Hydrology Project (HP) for the implementing agencies was
to “support major aspects of India’s National Water Policy, particularly with regard to water
allocation and planning and management of water resources development at the national,
state, basin, and individual project levels”. The immediate objective that was to be the focus
of all activities in the HP was to “improve institutional and organizational arrangements,
technical capabilities, and physical facilities available for: measurement, validation, collation,
analysis, transfer, and dissemination of hydrological, hydro-meteorological, and water quality
data; and for basic water resource evaluations”, in other words: establish a comprehensive
Hydrological Information System (HIS). Specifically, the agencies were to develop
“comprehensive, easily accessed, and user friendly databases covering all aspects of the
hydrological cycle, including surface water and groundwater in terms of quantity and quality
and climatic measurements, particularly of rainfall”.
The objective of the Technical Assistance (TA) has been a derivative of these objectives: “to
provide broad technical and institutional support to the participating agencies, and to assist
the project authorities to implement the Hydrology Project in accordance with technical
criteria, standards, and procedures agreed by the Bank and the Government”. Specifically,
the TA was to deliver a number of relevant technical outputs, and otherwise advise and
assist the agencies in their activities.
Development of the Hydrological Information System
Under the project, actual development and implementation of the HIS has been the
responsibility of the implementing organizations of the participating states and central
agencies. To this end, they employed the proceeds of the World Bank credit. It has been
the function of the TA to support the organizations in carrying out this responsibility, through
design of the system, formulation of technical specifications for software, hardware and civil
works, formulation of organizational arrangements and job descriptions, providing a
methodology for monitoring progress towards target achievement, and in general supporting
the implementing organizations in managing their activities under the project.
As designed by the Consultant, the HIS is conceptualized as a “distributed system”,
comprising interrelated autonomous components in the different agencies. It represents a
paradigm shift from the pre-existing data collection practices, introducing a scientific basis
for aquifer / basin-wide data collection, major improvements in data validation, a change in
focus from collection and storage to analysis, and availability of the data to outside users.
Data is being collected either directly in the field at surface and groundwater observation
sites or, from water samples taken at these sites, through analysis in different types of
laboratories. This data is then entered into databanks at the subdivision / subdistrict level
(and for WQ data in the laboratories), where it undergoes primary validation to eliminate the
most obvious anomalies. The data is then sent to the division / district level offices for
secondary validation, and finally to the state data processing center for final validation and
ultimate storage in the state data storage center.

Final Report (June 2003) Page ii
To assist in the implementation of the system, the Consultant has worked with the individual
organizations at the local level as well as at the inter-agency level, to ensure appropriate
arrangements between the components (within and between the agencies) for system-wide
communication to facilitate data validation, integration of databases, and broadening of
scope.
Activities of the Technical Assistance
Project implementation required a significant administrative / logistical effort, for which many
of the agencies were poorly prepared, involving inter alia the creation of dedicated HIS units,
procurement of equipment, construction of civil works, establishment of new positions, and
training. Because of the many different locations at which the system was to be implemented
and the varying levels of readiness, the participating organizations carried out these
activities at their own pace. Hence, the project adopted a phased implementation: an
inception phase to lay the necessary groundwork; a development phase for standardization
of procedures, specifications for system design, and training development; an
implementation phase to put all the new procedures and structures into place; and a
consolidation phase to arrive at sustainable operation of the system.
This necessitated a strong framework for planning and monitoring of the agencies’ activities.
The Consultant provided this in the form of the HIDAP, which categorized everything to be
done in a logical grouping and sequencing of activities. In each of the HIDAP categories, the
Consultant provided the necessary support. The relevant TA activities are summarized
below (following the HIDAP categories):
• Assessing the needs of the users – the Consultant provided inter alia a questionnaire for
data need assessment, terms of reference and model agendas for Hydrological Data
User Groups
• Review and establishment of the observation network – the Consultant provided inter
alia all manuals for the design, operation, and maintenance of the hydro-meteorological
and surface water and groundwater quantity and quality networks. This included the
review and integration of the observation networks, and guidance for the establishment
of a network of water quality laboratories.
• Management of historical data – the TA developed an approach for systematic inventory
of data availability and planned data entry and processing.
• Data collection – the TA developed the relevant manuals and training documents, and
conducted regular field inspections to investigate actual data collection practices. This
included the development of standard analytical procedures for WQ data.
• Data processing, analysis, and reporting – the Consultant assisted the agencies in the
design of their data processing centers, developed a comprehensive set of HIS
operation manuals, and formulated specifications for all hardware and software to be
used in the data centers. The TA provided the SW data processing software and fully
tuned it to the needs of the HIS. The TA continuously supported the outside Consultant
engaged for the GW software, who did not have the necessary domain experience. On
substantive processing, the TA initiated research studies in the Sabarmati and Godavari
basins.
• Data exchange and reporting – the TA provided specifications for relevant equipment
and incorporated data exchange procedures in the processing phases in the HIS
operation manuals and embedded them in the SW and GW protocols.

Final Report (June 2003) Page iii
• Data storage and dissemination – the Consultant assisted the agencies in the design of
their data storage centers, formulated hard and software specifications, and produced
the relevant design and operation manuals. The TA also gave extensive support to the
outside Consultant engaged to develop the DSC software.
• Institutional and human resources development – the Consultant provided assistance in
planning of HP activities through HIDAP, and monitoring and evaluation of progress
through the MIS. The Consultant also arranged long-term relationships with established
training institutes to include training on the HP approaches in their respective programs
(ranging from field-level data collection to data processing, storage, and analysis),
arranged overseas training for key HIS personnel, assisted in setting up HDUGs,
conducted workshops on cultural assessment and change management, and undertook
promotional activities to disseminate the utility of the HIS to different target groups within
and outside the participating organizations.
Each agency implemented its part of the project in line with the design, specifications, etc.
outlined by the Consultant in generic activities. However, where local conditions and
circumstances presented specific problems, the Consultant also assisted the agencies in
finding or identifying specific solutions. The first line of assistance in this regard was
provided through the office of the State Management Consultant (SMC). Especially in the
early years of the project, the SMCs were able to help the agencies keep their activities on
track, implement their activities in line with general specifications, rules for procurement, etc.,
and generally liaise with the central TA office in New Delhi for additional support if need be.
Later on in the project, generally after the physical elements of the HIS had been put in
place, the SMCs were replaced by HIS Management Consultants (HMCs), who focused
more on the substantive operationalization of the system.
Approach
From the start, HIS development has not been approached as development of a mere
technical instrument, but as a change in how the agencies deal with hydrological information,
in general representing a shift from very instrumental data gathering (for individual
development projects) to a more systemic approach (to improve the general overview and
understanding of the state of water resources in the hydrological cycle). While emphasizing
this systemic character, it was at the same time necessary to ensure that the distributed
elements of the system would meet all individual requirements of the participating
organizations. This necessitated intimate involvement of the organizations from the very
beginning of the project, in order to create a sense of ownership. In turn, this precluded the
use of a blue print approach. Instead, a process approach was employed allowing the
different agencies to specify their individual needs and priorities, as well as accommodating
their different capabilities and capacities for change.
These two seemingly conflicting principles – striving towards system integration and
standardization while leaving room for individual differences and abilities – made it
necessary to develop and adhere to a rigid logical framework of activities. To this end, the
Consultant assisted the agencies in identifying their objectives and related outputs of their
activities in the project, together with an identification of possible obstacles and threats to the
successful completion of these activities. The Consultant then identified relevant advisory
activities in relation to these findings, i.e. in support of the agencies’ own development work
or in trying to address the obstacles and threats (e.g. through addressing these at higher
levels to which the individual organizations have only limited access).

Final Report (June 2003) Page iv
An important question throughout the project has been the relative involvement of the TA
with the different agencies. In the beginning, when all agencies had to find their way in the
project, all required and received equal assistance on the same aspects of development. As
the agencies diverged in their progress, the nature of the individual assistance began to
vary, but all agencies nonetheless still received equal attention. However, as time went by, it
became clear that a number of agencies could not create the basic conditions for HIS
operationalisation. Therefore, towards the end of the project it was decided that the TA’s
attention should focus more on agencies that showed real potential for full-fledged
operationalisation of the HIS. The expectation was that concentrating TA support on
agencies that were most likely to be successful offered the best probability that the success
would be sustained and thus become an example for the other agencies to follow on their
own, possibly with additional government support post-HP.
A key principle of the approach has been that the Consultant should limit himself to
assistance, while leaving detailed implementation to the agencies. Accordingly, in the
beginning of the project, TA consultants travelled extensively to assist the agencies in
detailed implementation of network identification, data need identification, etc. Mid-project,
the Consultant focused much more on general organization and structuring of the system
(formulating staffing requirements, job descriptions, training approaches, etc.), whereas
towards the end of the project the attention was on operationalisation. The change in
emphasis was reflected in the change in how the TA provided support at the local level: in
the first few years the TA maintained a “State Management Consultant” (SMC) in each of the
states, whose job was to assist in matters of procurement, monitoring general direction of
the project, etc. Once the physical aspects of the HIS fell into place, the SMCs were phased
out and replaced by HIS Management Consultants (HMCs) and Data Management
Consultants (DMCs). The function and operations of the HMCs was significantly different
from those of the SMCs, in that they were much more substance oriented and, moreover, did
not devote their entire attention to only one state but generally managed the development
activities in a few states. The DMCs, mostly operating from the central TA office in New
Delhi, focused on the technical aspects of HIS implementation.
Hydrology Institution Development Action Plans
The systematic identification of activities for the agencies took place in the formulation of the
HIDAP. This planning instrument was identified in the Appraisal Report as crucial to
successful project implementation, and was intended to underpin annual review of progress
and subsequent action. The Consultant developed the HIDAP instrument along the lines of
logical framework analysis, taking care to present only concepts to the agencies and leaving
the ultimate detail up to them. Since the first HIDAPs were developed individually in and by
the different agencies, this resulted in varying quality and content. The Consultant then
assisted in focusing HIDAP development on the best elements revealed in this process, by
developing a Model HIDAP. Application of the model did justice to the standardization
element in the project, while leaving room for the agencies to identify relevant activities in
widely diverging circumstances and to do so in a systematic manner. Moreover, as it
presented the key elements of the entire project in a logical inter-related framework, the
Model HIDAP as applied in the individual agencies became a powerful tool for introduction of
new participants in the organizations.
Taking the step towards the intended systematic progress review, the Consultant identified
the key information to be extracted from the HIDAP for annual progress monitoring at all
relevant levels in the organizations. This was done with the help of the SW and GW
agencies in Andhra Pradesh, which actively participated in identifying what information
needed to be reported to different levels of management and what form such report should
take. This became the basis for the Status Reports, which were subsequently developed by

Final Report (June 2003) Page v
all agencies for the Mid-term Review Mission. Finally, further distillation of only the most
important information resulted in HIS Balanced Scorecards, which showed progress on three
dimensions of performance: internal perspective, user perspective, and sector perspective.
The Status Reports also gave shape to the agency-level MIS subsequently introduced in the
agencies. However, whereas in HIDAP all activities were always related to output
objectives, it appeared that in many agencies the focus of progress reporting through the
MIS remained on the use of inputs rather the production of outputs. It is on the latter aspect
that the MIS was to link to the HIS, but for a long time the agencies have had limited
attention for monitoring the data collection and processing activities either in quantitative or
qualitative terms. This appears to have changed now that a data flow monitoring application
has become available in the HIS, which has generated considerable enthusiasm among field
level management.
Further development of the HIDAP as a planning and monitoring instrument stopped after
the Mid-term Review Mission which reported annoyance among some agencies about the
emphasis on the related activities. Hence, with most progress reporting conducted through
the MIS, the HIDAP ceased to be annually updated, although at project end one or two
agencies expressed a desire to rekindle the HIDAP planning process.
Procurement
At the beginning of the project, specifications were provided for all manner of equipment.
With respect to specific hydrological monitoring equipment and computers, the Consultant
has made many inspection visits to the field to assist the agencies in proper
operationalisation, etc. It quickly became apparent that many items of equipment did not
meet the specifications, usually as a result of a bias towards lowest cost procurement in
existing government regulations coupled with inadequate technical knowledge of the
procurement officers. The problems were exacerbated by the fact that procurement was
often centralized and conducted in large batches. Had smaller batches been procured,
procurement of subsequent batches might have been able to reflect experience with
equipment already received and operationalised. Despite the best efforts of the TA, agencies
have also ignored documented or otherwise known misprocurement by others. In future
projects, a Technical Procurement Committee, supported in an advisory capacity by the
Consultant, should decide on purchases, extensive field testing should be conducted, and
taking into account experience with similar procurement elsewhere should be made
mandatory.
The Consultant has formulated specifications for hardware and software, including for data
processing and data storage, in support of system development. In the case of surface
water, the data processing software was provided “off the shelf” through HYMOS from
Delft|Hydraulics, but for groundwater and the DSCs the GoI let separate software
development contracts to local providers. The related process for procurement/contracting
became seriously delayed due to limitations faced by the Client. Moreover, in hindsight it
may be argued that the TA’s early recommendation to let the contracts for groundwater data
processing software in combination with the supply of the relevant computer hardware was
in error – since the cost of all the items of equipment to be procured was far higher than the
cost of software development. Hence, the resultant bias towards hardware under lowest-cost
procurement rules for a combined package limited the degrees of freedom for selection of
the software developer. In fact, the provider eventually selected lacked the necessary
domain expertise and had to go through a significant learning curve in implementing the
software component of the contract. The Consultant has attempted to guide this process
early on, but cooperation from the provider developed only slowly.

Final Report (June 2003) Page vi
Achievements
By and large, the objectives of the project have been met. The major achievement is the
establishment of standardized systems, networks, and procedures. The technical system
has become an operational reality in most participating states. Networks have been
rationalized, data is being shared, and data validation is gradually gaining ground. A water
quality monitoring network has been introduced in the SW and GW domains. Hydrological
information is now being collected systematically and processed in a standardized manner, it
is stored in a manner that allows analysis, and it is available to many different users.
Institutionally, the implementing agencies have significantly improved their capacity and
capabilities for data collection and processing, although the sophistication of processing
capability is greater for SW than for GW. Sophisticated data collection equipment has been
introduced. Standardized practices for technical procedures have been laid down in
manuals that are available in all the agencies. While the development of the HDUGs has
been delayed, there is nevertheless still scope for development of a strong role for data
users in the operation of the HIS. Most importantly, a real enthusiasm has developed in the
agencies for the benefits associated with the HIS.
The improvements brought about under the HP could not have been possible without
significantly increased staffing levels. In this connection, the TA has produced staffing
schedules and job descriptions. However, in many cases staffing levels remain lower than
proposed by the TA. Two factors contributed to this: a recruitment ban that necessitated the
filling of new HIS positions through redeployment of existing staff from elsewhere, and –
especially in SW organizations – a lack of enthusiasm among staff to take up HIS posts.
Especially the water quality and data management positions remain difficult to fill in most
states, as there are few staff with requisite experience that can be redeployed to the
positions in question. Ultimately the best approach seems to be to train otherwise well-
educated personnel of other disciplines for such redeployment.
With respect to the creation of favourable institutional conditions for sustainable operation of
the HIS, most states have managed to formally establish an HIS organization, formulate a
proper WQ mandate, make available an adequate HIS budget, and establish an HIS
helpdesk. The HIS protocols have been adopted into the regular government procedures in
almost all states, as has been the execution of the analytical quality control program.
However, not all states have established training cells in the HIS organizations.
The achievement is sketchier with respect to effective communication with users. All states
have established HDUGs and adopted the relevant terms of reference, and almost all have
produced system maps. However, with the exception of a model Hydrological Information
Need (HIN) document for Maharashtra, as yet no HIN documents have been prepared to
document the underpinning of the networks’ layout, nor have thematic yearbooks been
produced or user satisfaction surveys conducted. The latter is due to the fact that, unlike the
HIN documents, yearbooks and satisfaction surveys require the (full) functioning of the HIS,
and that has been seriously delayed by late production of the software for groundwater data
processing and for the data storage centers. In fact, the agencies themselves are only
gradually developing a perspective on the utilities of HIS data as operation of the system is
becoming more routine.
It appears that HIS manuals are not available at all observation sites and that the
possibilities afforded by the HIS to collect management information on data collection and
processing are not being utilized sufficiently. On the other hand, there is genuine
enthusiasm among data processing staff for the possibilities of data analysis afforded by the

Final Report (June 2003) Page vii
HIS, for SW with the fully adapted version of HYMOS and for GW and WQ even at the
limited level that was possible with the data entry systems produced by the TA while the data
processing software was not yet available.
Sustainability
In order to address the varying performance levels of the different agencies, the Consultant
commenced a series of Organizational Assessments to identify how existing conditions
impacted on the implementation of the HIS in relation to three basic functions in the
organization: the traditional hydrology function, the information function, and the
management function. The assessments inter alia identified “organizational culture” as a
critical factor for sustainability. Subsequently, the institutional development activities of the
TA focused on this aspect through a series of workshops, in which participants sought to
formulate specific action plans for improvement. This approach was similar to that of the
earlier HIDAPs. However, whereas the HIDAPs had focused on detailed operational issues
in the HIS, the cultural assessment workshops focused on developing mission and values
statements to create a central focus for sub-ordinate objectives and to identify the values
that are appropriate for an organization that wants to successfully operate the HIS over the
long term. The workshops then formulated the action plans to fill the gap between the actual
and desired situation.
Even with an appropriate sense of mission and values, the HIS as developed in the different
agencies can only sustain in a conducive institutional environment. Hence, the institutional
development activities of the TA also focused on aspects in the fields of structure and
systems, policy and procedures, and people and processes. In this connection, TA
involvement has been instrumental in the establishment of a National-level Coordination
Committee (for post-HP coordination of updating the system, etc.), a national level Water
Quality Assessment Authority, a National HIS helpdesk (to be transferred for post-HP
operation to the CWC and CGWB), HIS training cells in the different agencies (for post-HP
continuation of training solutions), protocols detailing the different aspects of operating the
HIS, etc.
Lessons learned
The HIS has been conceived as a dynamic system, able to accommodate growing and
changing demand patterns of data users. This requires not only a demand orientation in the
HIS organizations as data providers, but also the development of active external demand
from the outside users. The HDUGs were intended to play a pivotal role in stimulating this
demand and to become a steering element in further HIS development.
However, since at the start of HP the data providers were also the largest data users, the
need to establish HDUGs was initially not widely perceived. At the same time, outside
parties until then not using hydrological data were themselves not clear about their needs.
Indeed, the understanding of these needs was not possible until a working HIS could deliver
a range of outputs. Having such outputs available would help in “educating” potential
“customers” as to their possible data needs. Conversely, not having outputs from a fully
functional HIS risked disappointing – and possibly alienating – users if they discovered that
the need they had just learned to express could not be met.
A pragmatic solution then was to first develop the HIS with the existing data providers and to
focus on HDUGs later. This was also in line with the TOR, which foresaw an increasingly
operational HIS for the second half of the project period, during which the Consultant could

Final Report (June 2003) Page viii
assist in dealing with the “growing pains” that plague any new system, and in the process
acquaint the users with demand identification through the HDUGs. Ultimately, the HDUGs
would then become able to interact with the HIS providers and identify feasible adjustments
to the system. It was not expected that during this period there would be a need for
significant adjustment of the network layout and monitoring practices, but the experience
gained in data need identification and formulating practicable ways to accommodate these
needs would prepare the HDUGs for their post-project role in this respect.
The late delivery of software for data processing and data storage meant that the activities
as originally foreseen for the second half of the project could not take place. Although
HDUGs have been established in all states during the project, the limited functioning of the
HIS made that they have had little of substance on their agenda. Hence, they are not yet
fully prepared for their important post-HP role in ensuring the dynamic development of the
HIS, and do not yet develop a strong interactive role with the agencies in shaping the HIS.
As a result, the HIS remained the “property” of the original agencies. This has to some
extent perpetuated the originally prevailing supply orientation in those agencies. The lesson
from this chain of events may be that the establishment of the HDUGs should have been
further postponed until completion of the software development for GW and WQ data
processing and especially for DSC operation. Although this could not have been foreseen
early on, this would have meant that the initialization work on HDUGs should have begun
during the first year of the project extension, which would have made it possible to actively
involve the data users in the operationalisation phase of the respective software items in the
agencies from April 2003 onwards.
The delayed activation of the HDUG concept could have benefited from stronger
professional pride and capabilities in the agencies, and this could have been supported
through the establishment of “quality circles”. Such circles would involve data practitioners,
i.e. HIS staff of the different national and state agencies collecting, processing, and applying
data. While establishing “quality circles” could have risked exacerbating the proprietary
image of the HIS from the agencies’ perspective, by building appreciation for the potential
utilities of the HIS it could have created a stronger platform for HDUG activation. For
example, with stronger professional commitment, HIN documents for all networks might
have been available earlier on, setting the stage for future demand-supply interaction in the
HDUGs. In turn, the availability of such documents might have provided more focus for
development of the HIS as a technical system, thus perhaps avoiding some – though by no
means all – of the obstacles that have delayed implementation.
Potential for future development
At the end of the HP, all agencies in all states had set up observation networks and started
data collection and processing in a standardized manner. Groundwater data processing
software has finally been completed and installed, and agencies are beginning to work with
it. Fortunately, they have been able to do some processing for several years already using
the Data Entry Software developed by the TA. A real enthusiasm for the system and what it
can do is growing among the staff of the agencies. As could be expected given the different
circumstances and conditions, some agencies have proved to be more successful than
others in operationalising the HIS.
Due to the delays in especially the development of the software for data processing (GW)
and data storage (both SW and GW), the two years originally planned for a consolidation
period have been lost. Hence, now that the mentioned software is finally coming available, it

Final Report (June 2003) Page ix
is of utmost importance to consolidate the infrastructure established in the peninsular states
to ensure long-term sustainability. Consolidation would involve:
• Optimization of monitoring activities, involving expansion or intensification of the
networks, adjustment of monitoring frequencies, etc.;
• Consolidation of day-to-day operational procedures and maintenance – particularly
internalization of the need for data validation, collection of and taking action on data
relevant for network management, etc.;
• Retraining of existing staff lacking requisite specialist background (as recruiting new
properly qualified staff is not possible);
• Taking inventory of the potential users and their data needs in the private sector, and
non-WR institutions in the public sector, to assess how their needs can be met and how
they can be involved;
• Preparation of water resources assessment reports;
• Assisting the HDUGs in assuming their interactive role with the HIS agencies to guide
future changes to the network layout and monitoring practices to accommodate the
needs of data users as they change over time.
These activities are important for consolidating the achievements to date. They also provide
the basis for further development.
One opportunity that presents itself now that the HIS has become functional in all respects is
to replicate the system to states that did not participate in the HP. This horizontal expansion
would involve essentially the same activities as under the HP in peninsular India, i.e.
focusing on the technical processes of data collection, data processing, and data
management.
However, for long-term sustainability of the HIS it will be necessary to shift from data
collection and processing towards using the data in the planning and management of water
resources. One of the limitations of the HP has been that it was being implemented by
technical units with direct responsibility for data collection and processing, without much
involvement of planning and development units. This has resulted in underexposure of the
benefits of the HIS, and this has also made it difficult to generate interest among other users
outside the department. Effective demand for hydrological information will often exist in a
broader water resources and inter-sectoral development context. Therefore, a vertical
extension of the HIS is highly recommended, shifting from data collection and processing
towards using the data in the planning and management of water resources.
Two possibilities are real-time use of data for operational purposes and planning and
implementing integrated water resources management (IWRM). Real-time data use
includes early flood warning, operational management of irrigation systems and reservoirs,
and drought monitoring (conjunctive use, watershed management, resource assessment).
Developing IWRM involves expanding the HIS into a Water Information System (WIS), i.e.
linking the hydrological information collected under the “basic” HIS (data describing the
natural system) to data describing the socio-economic system and the administrative and
institutional system. In line with the existing National Water Policy, the development of
IWRM would involve the creation of river basin organizations. Such organizations have as a
prime technical function the development of a network of data banks and databases at basin
level, which should be freely accessible to all user agencies. The existence now of a user
oriented HIS is a significant contributing factor to the establishment of RBOs.

Final Report (June 2003) Page 1
1 Introduction
The Hydrology Project was set up to improve the Hydrological Information System in India to
arrive at comprehensive, easily accessible, and user-friendly databases covering all aspects
of the hydrological cycle. Such data are a prerequisite for wise water resources planning and
management in a country facing already severe water shortages in the present, not to
mention in the near future. The Terms of Reference for the Hydrology Project were laid down
in the World Bank’s Staff Appraisal Report No. 13952-IN of 14 July 1995. It outlined the
required improvements regarding institutional and organizational arrangements, technical
capabilities, and physical facilities available for collection and processing and exchange of
hydrological and hydro-meteorological data. The Hydrology Project concerned many
organizations, both at Central and State level. The Central agencies involved were the Central
Water Commission (CWC), Central Ground Water Board (CGWB), National Institute of
Hydrology (NIH), Central Water and Power Research Station (CWPRS), and the India
Meteorological Department (IMD). At the State level, the relevant organizations comprised the
Irrigation (or Water Resources) and Groundwater Departments in Andhra Pradesh,
Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Kerala, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa and Tamil
Nadu (see Figure 1.1).
Figure 1.1:
States in the Hydrology
Project
The World Bank, through the International Development Association, signed on 22
September 1995 a Development Credit Agreement and Project Agreement with the Go-
vernment of India and the participating States to execute the Hydrology Project (Credit No.
2774-IN). The amount of the credit was 90.1 million Special Drawing Rights (USD 142
million equivalent), whereas the total cost of the project was estimated at USD 162.4 million.
The project was originally scheduled to be implemented in a period of six years (1996 to
2001). Due to delays in implementation its duration was extended and the closing date of the
project was revised to 31 December 2003, while the credit was reduced to 75.1 SDR
(equivalent to USD 122 million).

The World Bank's Staff Appraisal Report included a Technical Assistance (TA) component to
assist the Central and State agencies in the implementation of the Hydrology Project. The
Governments of India and The Netherlands, in consultation with The World Bank, agreed to
finance the Technical Assistance under the bilateral Indo-Dutch program through a grant
equivalent to Euro 12.76 million (later increased to Euro 14.85 million).
The contract for the execution of the required consultancy services under the TA component
was awarded to DHV Consultants BV of The Netherlands, which established a joint venture
with WL|Delft Hydraulics, also of The Netherlands. The joint venture implemented the
Project in association with HALCROW (UK), TAHAL (Israel), and the national consulting
firms JPS and Associates, MDP, ORG and CES. The agreement with the Consultant was
signed early July 1996, although the Technical Assistance started on the ground in May
1996.
This Final Report summarizes both the Hydrology Project and the Technical Assistance,
their objectives, implementation, achievements and lessons learned. Chapter 2 of this report
describes the background of the project, highlighting the nation’s increasing decline into a
situation of water crisis, the importance ascribed to integrated planning and development in
the National Water Policy, and the related need to improve the accuracy and availability of,
and access to, data on water resources.
Chapter 3 descries the Objectives of the Hydrology Project and gives brief outline of the HIS
established under the Project.
Chapter 4 describes the general “advise and assist” role of the TA under the project,
involving specific institutional development-type of activities aimed at sustainability, and also
guidance to the participating authorities for overall management of the implementation
process.
Chapters 5 and 6 describe the scope of activities for the agencies and their related
achievements, respectively. Specific contributions of the TA to HIS development are
highlighted in “boxes” in these chapters.
Chapter 7 describes the lessons learned, related to project design and expectations, actual
incentives driving implementation, and the constraints posed by government procedures.
Finally, Chapter 8 presents the staffing and financial overview of the Technical Assistance.
A number of Annexes have been included to provide further detail on certain aspects and
issues mentioned in the main body of the report.
All documents and manuals prepared by the TA and considered to have lasting value, have
been collected on a CD-ROM (enclosed in the back page of this report). These documents
will also be placed in the HIS Resources Data Base on the HIS-website, as established and
maintained by the National Data Centre of CWC.

2 Project background
2.1 Hydrological information need
Fresh water is one of the most critical natural resources for the continuance of life on earth.
The pressure on freshwater resources has increased dramatically during the 20th
century. By
1997, one-third of the world’s population was living under medium to high water-stress
conditions. It is expected that by 2025, two-thirds of the population will be affected by water
shortages. Sharp population growth in most parts of the developing world has led to greater
pressure on domestic and industrial water supplies and on producing sufficient food, which
requires more water. Inefficient irrigation practices compound the problem of freshwater
availability in many parts of the world. The available amount of suitable water is further
reduced due to contamination of water resources caused by the discharge of
untreated/partially treated wastewater and recharge from irrigated fields into natural water
bodies. The looming water crisis with competition for water among neighbouring countries
will become a source of conflict, as about 300 river basins and numerous aquifers are
shared among two or more nations. Recurring floods and droughts in several parts of the
world, are causes of concern for the society. Unless water resources are wisely managed,
water shortages and hazards are bound to become serious obstacles for economic and
social progress, particularly in the developing countries.
The global picture also applies to India. The spatial and temporal distribution of its water
resources is highly uneven and economic and demographic developments put further
pressure on it. Safe drinking water is required for the very large and growing population.
Water has also become a major constraining factor for growth of the agricultural and
industrial sectors. In large areas in the country the available water resources are gradually
becoming depleted, groundwater levels are dropping dangerously low, and surface and
groundwater are getting polluted. It is no exaggeration to say that India is either already in,
or will soon be in a water crisis, as illustrated in Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1: Per capita fresh water availability in India
(Source: UNICEF, 1998)
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
Year
m
3
/capita
Adequate Water
Water scarcity
Water Stress

The water crisis is not only about having too little water to meet the needs and about the
water being too polluted. There is also a crisis in managing the available water adequately,
resulting in the fact that millions of people - and the environment – suffer. Water problems
are further aggravated by flooding, which frequently threatens populations and their
properties along the rivers and in the coastal zone.
Picture 2.1: Floods
Picture 2.2: Droughts
Competing demands, between individual and groups of users as well as among states,
require proper planning, design and management of water resources and water use
systems. India’s National Water Policy (2002) advocates an integrated planning and
development of the conjunctive use of surface and groundwater, addressing the multiple
uses of the water simultaneously. To accomplish this it stipulates in articles 2.1 to 2.3 that:

“A well developed information system, for water related data in its entirety, at the
national/state level, is a prime requisite for resources planning. A standardized
national information system should be established with a network of data banks and
data bases, integrating and strengthening the existing Central and State level
agencies and improving the quality of data and the processing capabilities. Standards
for coding, classification, processing of data and methods/procedures for its collection
should be adopted. Advances in information technology must be introduced to create
a modern information system promoting free exchange of data among the various
agencies. Special efforts should be made to develop and continuously upgrade the
technological capability to collect, process and disseminate reliable data in the
desired time frame. Apart from the data regarding water availability and actual water
use, the system should also include comprehensive and reliable projections of future
demands for water for diverse purposes.”
A major component in such a Water Information System (WIS) is a Hydrological Information
System (HIS), which provides accurate, comprehensive and timely available hydrological
data. An efficient and comprehensive HIS is a prerequisite for appropriate water resources
planning, design and management, to get better decisions made as well as to achieve
efficiency.
In the set-up of an HIS the first question to be addressed is the type of information the
system has to provide. This requires an identification of the potential hydrological data users.
Data users first of all comprise the Central and State Government agencies, which support
HIS. But there are scores of other governmental, non-governmental and private agencies
also, which could make good use of hydrological data. Inventory of hydrological data needs
require an identification of the objectives of water resources management and the functions
of the water system. Data needs of governmental agencies follow from their mandates
embedded in legislation and water policies. A priority ranking is needed to maximize the
output of HIS within the budgetary constraints.
2.2 Hydrological Information System prior to HP
Hydrological Information in India is primarily provided by various Central and State
Government’s meteorological, surface water and groundwater agencies. The India
Meteorological Department (IMD) is the main supplier of meteorological data. The Central
Water Commission (CWC) and the state water resources/irrigation departments deliver
information on surface water bodies. Similarly, information on groundwater is the
responsibility of the Central Ground Water Board (CGWB) and the respective State
groundwater agencies. The systems for gathering water quality information were primarily
the responsibility of Central and State Pollution Control Boards, State Public Health
Engineering Departments, CWC and CGWB, and of late also of the State WR and GW
agencies. The roles of the Central and State agencies are complementary: the Central
agencies for regional coverage of major rivers and geological set-ups, and the State
agencies for more detailed coverage within the States.
Observation Networks
Rainfall stations constitute the bulk of the hydro-meteorological network and are
predominantly owned by the state departments. India Meteorological Department (IMD)
collects and archives data from selected stations of this network. Climate stations, for hydro-
meteorological variables, are mainly maintained by the IMD; only a few states have a
substantial network of climatic stations. Most of the rainfall and climate stations owned by
IMD and the state departments were set up long ago (ranging from 20 to 100 years); most of
these have not been upgraded adequately. This has often resulted in gaps in data series
and quality of observations.

Picture 2.3:
Observation Network
River gauging stations had primarily been set up with a view to collect data on water levels
and discharges at river and reservoir stations. At some of these stations, sediment and water
quality was also observed. Stations belonging to the CWC were located on the major river
courses whereas those of the States were located on the smaller rivers and the tributaries of
the major rivers. The CWC network is primarily meant to gather information on the overall
water resources of the country, to resolve interstate water sharing, and for flood forecasting.
The observation network of various states covers the basins more intensely with the aim to
provide hydrological data for planning and designing of water resources projects.
By the time project appraisal, availability of observers at the river gauging and hydro-
meteorological stations had gradually declined. This, coupled with an ever reducing financial
support, had rendered most of the river gauging and meteorological networks (except CWC
and a few states) non-operational. The observation process on most hydro-meteorological
stations was manual with little automatic equipment installed in recent years. The discharge
measurement was mainly done by current meters in CWC stations; states used non-
standard floats.
Picture 2.4:
River Gauging Site

The assessment of groundwater resources in India is based on annual recharge and
discharge using a simple form of water balance equation. Among the different inputs, the
water levels, aquifer parameters, rainfall, and evaporation are being observed directly while
others are estimated indirectly. Prior to HP, most groundwater observations were done at
open dug wells tapping the upper unconfined aquifers. The water levels measured revealed
the piezometric head/water table elevation of the semi-confined/unconfined aquifers.
However, the necessary well-aquifer hydraulic connection was not always in place. The
frequency of monitoring was limited to four times in a year: pre-monsoon, monsoon, post-
monsoon, and winter seasons. Presumably, these water levels represent the troughs and
peaks of the water table hydrograph, though many times these are too sparse to yield
reliable and credible conclusions. Limited monitoring of the piezometric head of the deeper
confined/leaky confined aquifers was carried out by some agencies by observing the water
level in deep production tube wells.
Awareness to get information on water quality has grown only in the last couple of decades,
primarily due to deteriorating quality of already dwindling water resources. Whereas the river
gauging authorities try to obtain the basic water quality variables from the same locations as
the river gauging stations, the Pollution Control Boards take observations with the aim of
surveillance near industrial or urban centers. In the past, water quality laboratories were
inadequate in numbers and analytical capabilities. Insufficient finances have also hampered
operations.
Figure 2.2: Hydrograph
Though the observation networks of the central and state agencies were expected to have
complementary roles, the actual networks often showed many duplications/gaps.
Data processing and dissemination
Agencies providing hydrological services had been using computerised methods of data
handling for several years with different levels of sophistication, ranging from simple ASCII
based data files to more user friendly spreadsheet files and dBase databases. However,
there was a lack of uniformity in the formats and software being used in different agencies
and different offices of the same agencies. There had been a few efforts in the past in some
agencies to improve the data processing systems but these were not channelled to yield
objective solutions. Users faced difficulties in getting hydrological data, especially due to
difficulties in locating the source, unavailability of all data on computer media, and long
delays in data supply.

2.3 Constraints
The Hydrological Information Systems as found during the reconnaissance missions at the
start of HP were deficient in many ways. Since the agencies operating HIS were the main data
users, the system’s output historically has been “supply driven”, and was not tuned to the
needs of other potential hydrological data users. The monitoring networks, equipment and
practices were lacking and needed strengthening and upgrading. In many instances the
observation networks showed duplications and were overall often spatially inadequate and
deteriorating. Water quality variables were hardly observed. Application of non-standard
procedures for data collection and quality assurance among responsible agencies, manual
and henceforth limited data validation and processing, and outdated procedures for
information management and dissemination created a situation where the data provided by
the agencies were generally insufficient for proper water resources planning, design and
management.
Figure 2.5:
SRG site (defunct)
The problems could largely be attributed to weaknesses in the institutional infrastructure within
the agencies and between the agencies. The agencies were short of skilled staff, due to lack
of training and frequent transfers in an environment that was insufficiently oriented to
hydrology. This resulted in an overall neglect in maintenance of instruments and installation
and led to their malfunctioning. Money was not available for replacements. Procurement
procedures and disbursements of funds were often very lengthy, which frustrated timely
implementation and reduced motivation and enthusiasm of the concerned staff.
Standardization of equipment, procedures and exchange of information were strongly
hampered by the absence of any interagency communication culture. Improvements were
badly needed as clearly stipulated In the World Bank’s Staff Appraisal Report No 13952-IN
of July 1995.

3 Objectives of the Hydrology Project
The Hydrology Project has been a vast seven-year effort by nine peninsular states (eight
before the creation of Chhattisgarh) and the central government of India to establish an
integrated network of standardized, scientific hydrological databases, with associated
standardized monitoring and data processing procedures and related institutional capabilities
and capacities. Responsibility for implementation of the project has been with the
participating agencies in the different jurisdictions, which for this purpose could avail of
inputs provided under the related IDA credit. To support the agencies in their tasks, the
project also comprised a technical assistance component under a separate grant from the
Royal Netherlands Government.
With respect to the activities of the agencies, the overall development objective of the
Hydrology Project (HP) has been to:
“support major aspects of India’s National Water Policy, particularly with regard to
water allocation and planning and management of water resources development at
the national, state, basin, and individual project levels”
(World Bank Staff Appraisal Report 1995)
In this connection, the SAR stipulated as the immediate objective of the project to
“improve institutional and organizational arrangements, technical capabilities, and
physical facilities available for:
− measurement, validation, collation, analysis, transfer, and dissemination of
hydrological, hydro-meteorological, and water quality data
− and for basic water resource evaluations.”
In support of these objectives, the SAR identified the following specific outputs:
“comprehensive, easily accessed, and user friendly databases covering all aspects of
the hydrological cycle, including surface water and groundwater in terms of quantity
and quality and climatic measurements, particularly of rainfall”
The Hydrological Information System
Accordingly, under the project, the participating agencies established an HIS comprising
three important components (see Annex 1 for a more detailed description of the HIS):
1. Observation network
2. Data processing and storage infrastructure
3. Data communication arrangements
The HIS is a distributed system, i.e. it consists of autonomous components in the different
states. The system includes inter-agency communication arrangements for purposes such
as data validation, integration of databases and broadening of scope.

Laboratories
State Data
Processing
Center
State Data
Storage
Center
Other State
Data Centers
Central Agency
Data Centers
Div / Dist
Data Center
Subdiv / Dist
Data Centers
Field
Observation
Stations
This set-up allowed the individual participating agencies to continue their proprietary position
with respect to their part of the system and the data it contains. However, participation in the
HIS also emphasizes the inter-linkages between the constituent parts, and all agencies have
agreed in principle to provide access to outside users. Moreover, outside users also
became involved in planning for system development and operation, through their
membership in Hydrology Data User Groups (HDUG). The structure of the system is
graphically depicted below.
Data is collected at different points in the
system. Field observation stations yield
data on surface and groundwater, together
with meteorological data. Water samples
collected at these sites are sent to different
types of laboratories, which test the
samples water quality aspects.
The data thus collected is entered into the
data processing networks. In the
laboratories this involves storage in the in-
house computer, whereas data from the
observation sites in the field is sent for
computer entry at the subdivisional/district
offices of the surface and groundwater
departments.
Upon receipt and entry of the data, the
subdivisional/district offices conduct a
primary validation, and then send the data
on to the divisional level, where secondary
validation takes place. Finally, the data
goes to the state data processing center,
for final validation and ultimate storage in
the data storage center at state level.
Only finalized validated data are made available to the outside user. Information on what
type of data is available where in the system is provided in a meta database, of which a copy
exists in all data storage centers. This allows the user to easily define his data need and
formulate his data request accordingly.
Apart from the introduction of a scientific basis for aquifer / basin-wide data collection, major
improvements realized under the project are proper validation of data collected and opening
of the different databases to outside users. All this constitutes a significant change for the
participating agencies. First, the new approaches championed under the project
represented a paradigm shift. Next, implementing the project required a significant
administrative / logistical effort. In order to internalize the more sophisticated approach to
data collection, processing, and management, the agencies had to create dedicated HIS
units, establish new positions, fill these positions, and ensure that staff at all levels were
properly trained. Many agencies were poorly prepared to undertake these efforts.
Figure 3.1: Basic Structure of HIS

4 Technical Assistance
According to the SAR, the nature of the project demanded a significant need for technical
assistance and training to support the achievement of institutional and technical capability
objectives.
4.1 Objectives of the Technical Assistance
The main objective of the Technical Assistance as formulated in the SAR (1995) and the
TOR issued by the Government of the Netherlands (January 1996), is to
“provide broad technical and institutional support to the participating agencies, and to
assist the project authorities to implement the Hydrology Project in accordance with
technical criteria, standards, and procedures agreed by the Bank and the
Government.”
The specific tasks for the TA are presented in Annex 11 of the SAR. A number of these
involved the production of tangible outputs, generally to provide the agencies with a
standardized methodology for decision-making and implementation. The relevant outputs
specified in the SAR were:
1. Methodologies, guidelines, and standards for the optimization of networks and
monitoring frequencies, and for the selection of measurement methods,
chemical/biological parameters to be monitored, field/laboratory equipment to be used
and analysis procedures to be followed;
2. Guidelines and standard methodologies for data processing [and] general resource
assessment (including comprehensive overviews of water quality in the region);
3. A format for the production of surface water, groundwater, and water quality and
sediment yearbooks;
4. Manuals for surface water and groundwater monitoring to standardize technical criteria,
procedures, and monitoring and evaluation processes for all aspects of hydrological and
geo-hydrological measurements, including water quality and suspended sediment;
5. Technical specifications and contract documentation for equipment to be procured
under the project;
6. Procedures and processes for the validation of new and historical raw data;
7. A computational framework for surface water and groundwater quality assessment.
As mentioned above, the focus for development of these TA outputs was to assist the
process of implementation by the agencies. In fact, Annex 11 of the SAR and the TOR for
the TA (January 1996) spelled out many other responsibilities for the TA, which were more
of an “advise and assist” nature:
1. Assist the project agencies with the general management of the project, including
involvement in overall coordination of project implementation, review of annual work
programs, and monitoring, evaluation, and general performance of project performance;
2. Assist the project agencies with the strengthening of relevant administrative
arrangements and reporting procedures;
3. Advise the concerned agencies on the processes and procedures for the dissemination
of hydrological information, and for the strengthening of links with user organizations, as
through Hydrological Data Users Group (HDUG);

4. Encourage coordination between various agencies to: (i) ensure that national and state
monitoring networks would be complementary; (ii) establish uniform quality standards
and comparability of data; (iii) utilize data of non-participating agencies; (iv) share
experiences through workshops and seminars; (v) enhance utilization of the data;
5. Introduction of a “Hydrological Institutional Development Plan” (HIDAP) as systematic
planning tool, and assisting the implementing agencies in assessing the project
performance in terms of outputs and human, financial and technical resources in relation
to HIS objectives.
6. Training needs assessment, development of a training strategy, assistance to training
institutes, development of annual training programmes, preparation of training course
curicula, preparation of seminars and workshops, provision of formal training of trainers
from state agencies, monitoring the effectiveness of the training activities, and organising
overseas study tour and visits.
7. Assist the Project Coordinator to review annual workplans and quantity and cost
estimates, and assist in the preparation of annual budgetary requests;
8. Provide general advice and on-the-job training in installation and/or utilization of …
equipment, and the introduction … of quality control programs …;
9. Cooperate with the agencies to evaluate the performance of innovative hydrological
equipment under Indian conditions …;
10. Assist with the selection, procurement, and installation of the database system and data
processing software …, and provide on-the-job training for data input, validation, and
analysis;
11. Assist in the identification of surface and groundwater studies to be taken up in selected
basins …, and provide advisory support to the institutes [taking these up];
12. Support … agencies with the establishment of … laboratories, and with implementation
of pilot pollution monitoring and assessment programs …;
13. Provide guidance and support… for implementation of a real-time flood forecasting
system in Orissa and … Tamil Nadu;
14. Provision of specific institution support consultancy to CWPRS, CGWB, CWC and NIH.
The TOR of the TA Consultancy, issued by the Government of the Netherlands, stressed the
importance of adopting a Process Approach, while emphasizing the need to focus on
institutional strengthening programmes, a.o. HIDAP, HDUG, MIS and HRD.
Specifics on the TA’s activities for carrying out all these tasks and providing related support
to the agencies are indicated in separate “boxes” along with the description of the
development of the HIS in the Chapters 5 and 6 of this report. The present chapter
describes the involvement of the TA in guiding and managing the implementation process,
which was supported under its institutional development component (i.e. elements other than
training, procurement of equipment and vehicles, etc.).
4.2 Phased implementation
The implementation of HP from the perspective of the Technical Assistance (TA) went
through the following four phases:
1. Inception Phase, in which the necessary groundwork for HP implementation,
development of the organizational framework and planning of project activities took
place;

2. Development Phase, which comprised standardization of procedures and technical
specifications, design of HIS, development of staff training curricula and planning;
3. Implementation Phase, in which the procedures and designed structures were gradually
being implemented; and
4. Consolidation Phase, including support activities to arrive at sustainable operation of the
HIS.
All participating Central and State agencies went through the distinguished project phases,
but duration and timing varied according to achieved progress.
4.3 Logical Framework for the HIS
Throughout the Project implementation phases logical framework analysis has been applied
to identify the outputs that the project must produce to meet its objectives. These outputs
were the expected results of activities to be undertaken in the project. It is to be noted that
the project activities were for the greater part carried out by the agencies, with no
involvement of the Consultant in a line relationship. Hence, while TA activities were
necessary for achievement of the project objectives, they must be seen as complementary to
activities to be undertaken by the agencies.
For each of the outputs a number of indicators were mentioned by which the achievement
could be observed. In the logical framework, the identification of the TA activities was
preceded by an assessment of the current status with respect to the relevant output. The
proposed TA activities were directly related to this status. Next, the framework listed the
inputs to be provided by the Consultant. These inputs were always of advisory nature, and
were identified in terms of the individual TA staff members’ designations. Finally, the logical
framework listed a number of assumptions on the basis of which the activities were expected
to bear fruit. Following standard logical framework analysis practice, expectations that were
most likely to become reality were not listed under assumptions. Although a number of
assumptions were crucial for the successful completion of the project, none was deemed to
be a “killer assumption” (i.e. not likely to become reality) for all agencies. However, some
issues, e.g. availability of specialist staff in posts created, resulted in framing a “killer
assumption” if staff could not be redeployed, trained, or recruited. Where such staff
remained unavailable the TA had no option but to abandon the respective activity in such
agency. This resulted in an automatic selection of the states, in which the TA continued the
full range of its activities.
As an example, Annex 2 presents the logical framework for the Consolidation Phase of the
Project. The analysis points to the activities as from November 2001 required for building on
and completing the work that had been ongoing since 1996. The activities mentioned have
played an important role in the pursuit of this objective.
4.4 Developing the concept of the HIS
The basic concept for the HIS was described in the SAR, culminating in the formal
description of the specific output expected from the hydrology project: comprehensive, easily
accessed, and user friendly databases covering all aspects of the hydrologic cycle, including
surface water and groundwater in terms of quantity and quality and climatic measurements,
particularly of rainfall. The resulting system was to comprise distributed data processing /
storage centers from division / district level up to state and central level, and facilitate data
sharing among different users (including non-traditional ones).

Based on this formulation, the TA team further developed the concept of the HIS in line with
accepted international practices, and formulated preliminary outlines of the system structure
comprising a data collection network, a network of data processing capacities, and
arrangements for data communication and dissemination. An element of the system that
represented a departure from existing practices in most states was the development of a
tiered network of water quality laboratories aimed at full coverage of the water quality aspect
in the environmental context (i.e. beyond chemical analysis to determine suitability for
irrigation and drinking water only).
The concept developed by the TA team was first presented during a national-level HP
workshop in Hyderabad in December 1996. This workshop not only addressed the technical
requirements for HIS development, but also aimed at defining roles of the different parties in
the process (coordination committees, SMCs, nodal officers, etc.). Following basic
acceptance of the “pre-design” by this workshop, the TA further detailed the structure and
processes of the HIS. The results of these activities were regularly discussed in dozens of
technical workshops, many at national level and many others for one or a few specific states.
For example, a workshop on standards for collection, storage, and processing of surface
water data was conducted in May 1997, and similar workshops took place for groundwater
and water quality. At the same time, the TA team maintained regular contact with the High-
Level Technical Group on HP, which continually discussed progress on developments of the
structure and data flow of the HIS. Finally, the conceptual development was discussed at
regular intervals with the World Bank Review Missions.
A key element in developing the HIS was the reliance on existing structures and authorities,
and the determination to have the agencies develop “ownership” of the system. Existing
responsibilities for data collection were generally accepted as they were without pressure for
changing the basic distribution of authority. Instead, the TA team focused on developing
greater efficiency and effectiveness. This did not focus so much on the responsibilities and
authorities per se, but on elaborating and streamlining of processes and developing a more
outward orientation. In this connection, the TA team greatly emphasized the need to
institute data validation in line with scientific requirements. However, care was taken
throughout the project to present the HIS not as a “new” system (any structured arrangement
for collection, storage, and dissemination of data is a system, despite apparent flaws) but as
a “technically improved and expanded” system.
Throughout this process, the concept of the HIS became more and more clear and evolved
into design of networks, data centers, laboratories, etc. The sequence and interrelationships
of activities in developing the HIS were ultimately framed in the Model Hydrological
Institutional Development Action Plan, which provided the conceptual structure for the
implementation activities throughout the remainder of the project, as a reference point for
both the TA team and the imple
4.5 Process approach
The “advise and assist” role of the TA reflected the fact that the objective of the project was
not just to develop a new technical system, but to change the way in which the concerned
institutions approach hydrology, related data management, and dissemination of information
as made possible by the introduction of the system. In other words, the thrust of the TA has
been towards supporting the process of change by and within the implementing agencies.

To this end, the TOR indicated a process approach to project management. The concept of
the process approach is that, while the general objectives and direction of the project are
defined, specific work programs need continuous monitoring, feedback from users, and
adaptations as experience is gained. The process approach introduces flexibility in
implementation, and aims to ensure full involvement of the participating institutions in the
preparation of institutional development programs and related annual work programs.
Thus, the process approach seems to contradict the usual project implementation practice in
the agencies, which more likely interprets the SAR and TOR as a blueprint to be followed
without deviation. Therefore, one of the main tasks of the TA was to assist the agencies in
developing a process orientation.
A flexible and process-oriented approach demands strong coordination of activities and
management of the project both at the central and state government level. The SAR, and
TOR, therefore, prescribed a strong steering mechanism through annual project review,
comprising the following main elements for project management:
1. Hydrology Institutional Development Action Plan (HIDAP) – an annually reviewed and
updated agency-specific plan focusing on management, organizational, and institutional
development aspects of the project.
2. Hydrological Data User Groups (HDUG) – for feedback on user orientation and
satisfaction with hydrological information provision.
3. National Coordination Committee, with a Project Coordination Secretariat for overall
monitoring and evaluation.
4. State Project Coordination Committees for monitoring and evaluation of the physical
implementation and institutional development components of the project.
5. Annual Project Reviews by each state and central agency.
4.6 Process management
The TA has been involved with all the above five project management instruments. In
keeping with the basic principles of the process approach itself, actual experience showed
that some of these instruments were more effective than others. Hence, TA involvement
with their application changed over time.
Hydrological Data Users Group
Particularly the HDUG concept has been difficult to implement. These groups were
supposed to become the prime platform for user feedback and should advise on issues such
as network layout, monitoring frequency, pricing of data, etc. However, as delays occurred
in building the monitoring networks and data processing could not yet take place, such
discussions remained too abstract and theoretical for the participants to devote real attention
to them.
In practice, the agencies related active participation and commitment to the utility they would
derive from this effort in terms of their regular obligations. It is here that the HDUG concept
showed its limitations for directing development of the HIS: as long as there was no
functioning HIS, there was little enthusiasm for participation and, therefore, little contribution
to thinking about the direction of development.

Moreover, the inclusion of “new” data users in the HDUGs (i.e. other than the traditional
hydrological data collecting agencies) proved to be a complication. The actual ownership
and operation of the HIS would not change from the traditional agencies and these could,
therefore, not easily accept a role for other users in the decision-making on system
development. Nevertheless, with prodding from the TA the agencies have accepted the role
for the new users.
Picture 4.1:
Meeting of HDUG Members
In the early project years, TA activities in support of the HDUGs concentrated on defining
their role and position, convening workshops to disseminate the HDUG concept, and an
initial attempt to carry out data user surveys to identify existing and prospective data users
and determine their actual information needs. It was hoped that these surveys would
themselves provide an opportunity to expand the understanding of the HIS utility. However,
due to the initial lack of enthusiasm only two test surveys could be conducted at that time.
As time went by and the system came more and more “into view”, activation of the HDUGs
became possible. The TA has supported this during the last three years of the project by
developing HDUG Terms of Reference, assisting in formulation of the relevant establishment
orders, proposing a standardized agenda, facilitating workshops, and participating in actual
meetings to further explain the HDUG role, position, tasks, etc. Also, the data user surveys
became possible again towards the end of the project, when there were more HIS issues to
discuss. The HDUGs have now become established in all states and at the central level,
with participation of traditional and new data users.
Coordination Committees
In the participating states, the TA has been actively involved in the functioning of the
coordination committees through the State Management Consultants. The SMCs attended
all meetings, provided guidance to the committee members on the state of the project, and
suggested steps to be taken. The SMCs also supported the entities that functioned as the
committee secretariats in setting the agendas for the meetings and developing documents
for discussion. This support was generally provided to the office of a designated chief or
superintending engineer in the water resources department. Apart from this, the consultant
also advised the relevant entities in the individual surface and groundwater agencies.

At the national level there has been extensive support to the PCS and the central agencies.
Also at this level the TA participated in the meetings of the coordination committee. The TA
has cooperated with the PCS on a continual basis on all substantive matters relating to the
project (e.g. approval and circulation of documents and manuals) as well as on management
of the implementation process. A particular contribution in regard of the latter was the
implementation of a project management information system, through which the participating
agencies could report on their progress. An early version of the project MIS was devoted
mostly to implementation aspects of the development credit agreement (construction,
procurement, training numbers, etc.). Subsequently, the consultant developed and
introduced MIS-II to cover also the more operational aspects of system development.
Day-to-day support to the implementing agencies in the states was mostly of process nature,
focusing on liaison with the designated HP offices and motivation of the different agencies to
pursue coordinated implementation of their responsibilities under the project. The SMCs,
generally ex-Secretaries or Chief Engineers, were in an excellent position to keep the
pressure on at all levels in the relevant organizations. In the early years of the project this
proved to be essential, especially for bringing up to speed the construction and procurement
processes.
Annual Project Reviews
The reporting schedule of the TA was tied to the annual project review, which took place in
the fall, and which was updated in the spring of the following year. This regular monitoring of
project implementation progress proved the main impetus for the review of implementation
progress by the agencies. In practice, the agencies’ reporting schedule was aligned with the
semi-annual visits of the donor supervision missions.
In anticipation of the donor missions, the consultant regularly provided a report on the status
of project implementation as perceived by TA staff both at the center and in the states. This
consisted of brief explanations of the (absence of) changes in the numbers reported through
the MIS (“the story behind the numbers”). Despite the fact that the MIS data originated from
the agencies, the latter nevertheless also provided their own reports to the missions. The
data used in these reports were often at odds with the data from the MIS. Early on in the
project, the mission decided that the MIS should be the only source for data.
Notwithstanding, with respect to interpretation of the data the missions conducted their own
investigations, accepting the inputs from the TA and the agencies as contributions only.
Hydrology Institutional Development Action Plan
The annual reviews, and indeed also the activities involved in establishing the HDUGs, were
to be based on Hydrology Institutional Development Action Plans. The SAR considered
these an important element for sustainable and successful implementation of the project, to
be based on the assessment of the capacities, potential and constraints of each agency with
a view to identifying required resources, changes of procedures, or technical assistance
which could usefully be introduced to strengthen institutional capabilities.
The consultant devoted considerable time and resources to development and introduction of
the HIDAP. As developed, the HIDAP was actually based on logical framework analysis. It
was introduced through series of workshops in each state and at the center, in which the
participating agencies were first familiarized with the approach, then provided their own
“content” for the plans, and finally consolidated the plans into integrated SW/GW HIDAPs.
The HIDAP workshops stressed participation by staff from all levels in all agencies to ensure

understanding of and commitment to whatever was concluded in the sessions throughout
the agencies. This was greatly appreciated, as for many of the participants this was the first
time they were so involved in new developments, or indeed in any interaction with their
colleagues from other divisions and districts.
Notwithstanding the benefits of this involvement for overall understanding of the project, the
fact that the agencies did all the substantive development work themselves resulted in plan
documents that were very different in scope and detail. Therefore, based on this result, the
consultant developed a “model” HIDAP, taking into account all the elements suggested by
the agencies while ensuring a systematic and sequential linkage between the different
activities to be undertaken in the project. This resulted in the following chapters for the model
HIDAP: i) user needs; ii) network development; iii) data collection; iv) data processing; v)
data communication; vi) data storage; and vii) institutional and human resources
development.
In each chapter, the HIDAP planning concept involved first identifying the overall
development goal (to ensure common understanding of why HP was being implemented),
and then identifying desirable improvements and measurable performance indicators by
which to measure progress towards these. Finally, specific “output objectives” were
formulated in terms of the performance indicators. In the workshops, the agencies were
invited to identify the driving forces and/or restraining forces they would have to deal with in
achieving the output objectives, and to formulate strategies and specific action plans to do
this. For progress monitoring, “aspect plans” were introduced, in which similar activities for
all the different action plans were grouped together and projected in terms of time and
budget. This resulted in aspect plans for construction, procurement, training, staffing, and
research and development. The important difference between the basic HIDAP and the
associated aspect plans was that the former were explicitly output oriented, dealing with
what was to be achieved, and the latter listed the inputs to be used to do this.
4.7 Impact of the HIDAP
By the time of the mid-term review, the information collected for and presented in the
HIDAPs became the basis for detailed project status reports. These reports showed for
each agency the level of achievement towards the output objectives, in terms of the agreed
performance indicators. Subsequently, these status reports were further refined in the State
of Andhra Pradesh. They ultimately became the basis for so-called HIS Balanced
Scorecards, which, using the most important indicators on just two pages, provided a
balanced overview of achievement from an internal perspective, user perspective, and
sector perspective.
The combined efforts of the agencies and the TA resulted in a practical set of planning
documents, which had two important benefits. The first was organization of the very diverse
project activities during the early part of the project, providing direction to all concerned. This
benefit was especially appreciated within the TA team itself, and continued to guide its
activities to the very end of the project. As stated before, the TA had no direct responsibility
for establishing the system, which was the job of the agencies. HIDAP planning allowed
identification of constraints associated with the objectives listed for the different parts of the
HIDAP. The TA’s strategy and activity planning focused on identifying TA outputs that would
support the agencies in overcoming these constraints. Subsequently, in the annual review
process, these outputs were assessed in terms of how the agencies had absorbed them, i.e.
the extent to which the agencies could successfully make use of the TA support in these
areas. Over time, this resulted in changes in direction of the TA activities.

The second benefit of the completed HIDAPs was that they proved a ready summary of what
HP was about. Since counterpart staff dealing with the project in the agencies frequently
changed, especially at the senior levels, this was found useful for quickly becoming familiar
with all the project elements and aspects.
Unfortunately, the annual reviews by the supervision missions were perceived by the
agencies as emphasizing physical progress towards credit disbursement. Consequently, in
their reporting they devoted more attention to the inputs (trainees trained, buildings built,
equipment procured, etc.) than on the outputs to be produced by ensuring that these inputs
were applied in a timely, coordinated manner as described in the HIDAPs. Moreover, the
HIDAPs were not part of the formal government reporting cycle, as a result of which the
agencies gave less priority to their formulation and especially their updating. In fact, the Mid-
term Review Mission reported annoyance among some agencies about the emphasis on
HIDAP. Consequently, following the mid-term review the HIDAPs were given less emphasis
and institutional development began to be focused more directly on specific activities such
as organizational assessments, HDUG workshops, and cultural assessment workshops. In
practice this meant that agencies ceased updating the HIDAP annually.
4.8 Continuing support for institutional development
The organizational assessments were in-depth studies of how implementation of the HIS
would affect three basic functions in the organization: the traditional operational function, the
information system function, and the management function. Notwithstanding limitations
posed by existing general Government procedures and policies (e.g. recruitment ban), the
assessment sought to identify interventions to enable successful operationalisation of the
system. The assessment focused on four conditions for organizational effectiveness:
operational capability, operational flexibility (both addressing the track record of the
implementing agencies as organizations), staff capability, and staff motivation. Combination
of the basic functions and the conditions for effectiveness resulted in a matrix for analysis.
The first step in the analysis involved identification of perceived strengths and areas for
further improvement in each of the cells. The second step identified possible actions to
achieve further improvement, by building on existing strengths wherever possible,
culminating in a set of interrelated recommendations for each of the three basic functions.
One of the prime potentially limiting factors that came out of these assessments was the
prevailing organizational culture. Clearly, despite all the efforts for HIDAP planning, the HIS
units still had no clear vision for development. This was mainly due to norms and value
systems that were incompatible with internalizing the type of change introduced under HP.
Therefore, the TA commenced workshops on “HIS sustainability and organizational culture”
to address these issues in more detail. As previously in HIDAP, these workshops sought to
develop specific action plans for improvement. Following the workshops, the agencies
involved, with support from the consultant, established task forces and core committees, with
well defined terms of reference, to develop “Mission and value statements” and agendas for
“Change-action for HIS sustainability”. These activities continued to the very end of the
project and succeeded in generating more enthusiasm and commitment within the agencies
for aspects such as efficiency, quality consciousness, etc. that are so important for
sustainability of the HIS.

4.9 Institutionalisation of a sustainable HIS
Successful introduction and operationalisation of the HIS demands a series of changes in
the institutional setting, technology, systems, policies, procedures, and human processes.
The technological change introduced under the project is immediately measurable. Tangible
improvements include setting up modern physical infrastructure, introduction of
technologically superior and sophisticated data collection equipment, computerized data
processing tools and techniques, etc. However, the road to acceptance of the requisite
changes in management systems, policies, and procedures is longer and more tortuous,
because this depends on the administrative hierarchy and the implications beyond the
immediate HIS organization.
The consultant has focused on strengthening a variety of institutional mechanisms to remove
apparent weaknesses and at the same time enhance existing strengths. In this process, a
number of challenges have been tackled. These are found in three different domains:
• Structure and systems
• Policies and procedures
• People and processes
Structure and systems
This is one of the most difficult areas in which to induce change, for in a government setting
this generally comes under the purview of a larger parent organization. Moreover, the
gestation period between initiation and implementation of systemic and structural change
tends to be long. Nevertheless, a number of successes have been achieved, such as: i)
integrating water quality analysis in the traditional domain of quantity measurement; ii)
application of domain-specific standardized systems of data collection, processing, and
validation; iii) establishment of a uniform HIS organization structure in most states; iv)
formation of training cells headed by a training coordinator; v) introduction of a system for
preparing staffing and training plans; etc.
Policy and procedures
The implementing organizations are by and large free to determine their own routine policies
and procedures. Only policies with larger inter-departmental implications are referred to the
parent organizations. This made it possible for the TA to introduce a variety of procedural
changes. One of the models of this initiative is the formal release of several HIS-specific
administrative orders, inter alia: i) procedure for O&M budgeting; ii) introduction of O&M
procedures; iii) adoption of uniform water quality sampling procedures; iv) expanding the
HDUG membership base to include local NGOs and formation of task-specific specialist
groups; v) introduction of protocols for HIS data flow, inter-agency data validation, data
exchange, and data dissemination; vi) outsourcing of water quality analysis where specialist
staff were unavailable; etc.
People and processes
The TA has devoted considerable time and resources to have an impact in these mostly
intangible yet very important domains. Adoption of the model HIDAP, successful institutional
transition from a rigid compartmentalized outlook towards a more integrated water resources
management perspective, active participation of field level staff in division-level HIS

operationalisation workshops, adoption of computerized work practices, open-minded
approach to commence inter-agency data exchange, agency-wide emphasis on quality-
oriented and error-free HIS, are all manifestations of changes resulting from the activities
under the project.
These results have been possible due to different pro-active TA activities undertaken during
the project. Activities particularly relevant to post-HP sustainability are the following:
• Promoting the establishment of a national level HIS Coordination Committee, which
is to take over the activities of the NLCC/NLSC and should function as the policy-
level forum for coordination between the participating states and the central
agencies. The committee is to be supported by a coordination secretariat (HIS-
CS).
• Establishment of the National level Water Quality Assessment Authority, with legal
mandates for promoting standardization of procedures for WQ monitoring. The TA
described the need for this body, elaborated the related terms of reference, and
aggressively promoted the concept to concerned ministries. Consequently, the
authority was established in 2001. Post-HP, the HIS-CS may provide support to
this authority.
• Activation of an HIS helpdesk – The TA established this helpdesk during the
project. Post-HP this function should be performed by the national level Data
Storage Centers of the CWC and CGWB, respectively. The DSC of the CWC is
being set up in the office premises to be vacated by the TA, while the CGWB is
establishing its DSC in its offices in Faridabad.
• HIS operationalisation workshops – A series of regional/divisional level workshops
addressing management issues and shaping attitudes for the field and middle level
staff, related to monitoring quality control of the generated data. Post-HP, these
workshops should be repeated annually as part of the regular training calendars.
• HIS management workshops for enhancing personal effectiveness – To instill a
quality conscious and time-efficient work ethos, allowing HIS personnel to function
effectively despite constraints posed by general policies and regulations.
• HIS promotion at decision-making levels – To ensure continued budgetary and
management support by the higher-level decision-makers, the TA has started
activities such as: public relations, providing media visibility, awareness creation,
publication of newsletters, lobbying for staffing, etc. Post-HP these activities should
be continued by the national-level HIS Coordination Committee.
• Continued HIS training solutions – As the HIS develops, and as staff are
reassigned, a continued training effort is essential. To make this possible, HIS
training cells have been established in each of the agencies, long-term
personalized training plans have been documented, and contacts have been
established with central training institutes.
• Protocols – A number of manuals have been prepared on a variety of aspects such
as data collection, WQ sampling and analysis, data entry, validation, etc. Related
protocols have been formulated to ensure timely and uniform application of the
different procedures.
Apart from these activities, the TA has ensured the continued availability of the source
material for development and management of the HIS by creation of an electronic HIS
Library on the HIS website. The HIS library contains all documents prepared under the
project (or samples thereof where appropriate). A comprehensive catalog (Annex 3) has
been placed on the HIS Website with links to the related documents.

Download-manuals-general-final report

Download-manuals-general-final report

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (6)

Similar to Download-manuals-general-final report

Similar to Download-manuals-general-final report (20)

More from hydrologywebsite1

More from hydrologywebsite1 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Download-manuals-general-final report