Appendices.doc

2,906 views
2,878 views

Published on

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,906
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
14
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Appendices.doc

  1. 1. INVESTMENT IN AGRICULTURAL WATER MANAGEMENT IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA: DIAGNOSIS OF TRENDS AND OPPORTUNITIES A Collaborative Program between The New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), The African Development Bank (ADB), The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), The International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), The International Water Management Institute (IWMI), and The World Bank (WB) INCEPTION REPORT Volume 2 - Appendices Submitted to The African Development Bank January 2004 INTERNATIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT NSTITUTE
  2. 2. Table of Contents Table of Contents...............................................................................................................................................................1 List of Acronyms.................................................................................................................................................................3 Appendix 1. Detailed methodologies and workplans for the Bank Supported COMPONENTS...................................5 1. Review of Irrigation Project Planning and Implementation Process................................................................................6 BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION ..............................................................................6 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE.................................................................................................6 METHODOLOGY ..............................................................................................................7 Conceptual Framework...........................................................................................................................................7 Desk Review..........................................................................................................................................................9 Case studies........................................................................................................................................................10 Synthesis.............................................................................................................................................................11 ACTIVITIES ...................................................................................................................11 SYNERGIES....................................................................................................................11 2. Opportunities for Private Sector Participation in Agricultural Water Development and Management............................18 BACKGROUND and justification....................................................................................18 objectives AND SCOPE..................................................................................................19 methodology..................................................................................................................20 Activities........................................................................................................................21 Synergies ......................................................................................................................21 3. Health and Environmental Aspects...............................................................................................................................29 BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION ...........................................................................29 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE...............................................................................................30 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................30 Scheme Typology ................................................................................................................................................31 Definition of agro-ecological regions/agricultural production systems ..........................................................................31 Conceptual Framework .........................................................................................................................................31 Quantitative Indicators .........................................................................................................................................31 ACTIVITIES....................................................................................................................32 SYNERGIES....................................................................................................................32 OUTPUTS.......................................................................................................................33 4. Agricultural Water and Livestock Production................................................................................................................38 BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION............................................................................38 METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH..................................................................................39 OUTPUTS ......................................................................................................................41 5. Study on Agricultural Water Development for Poverty Reduction in sub-Saharan Africa.............................................46 BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION ...........................................................................46 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE...............................................................................................46 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................46 Conceptual Framework .........................................................................................................................................46 ACTIVITIES....................................................................................................................47 Literature Review and Recommendations of the IFAD Poverty Study............................................................................47 Case Selection......................................................................................................................................................47 SYNERGIES....................................................................................................................48 OUTPUTS.......................................................................................................................48 APPENDIX 2. OTHER COMPONENTS OF THE COLLABORATIVE PROGRAM...............................................................54 6. Regional Demand for Products of Irrigated Agriculture (FAO)......................................................................................55 BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION ...........................................................................55 FAO’s Support to Agricultural Water Management.....................................................................................................56 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE...............................................................................................57 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................57 ACTIVITIES....................................................................................................................59 SYNERGIES WITH OTHER COMPONENTS.....................................................................59 OUTPUTS.......................................................................................................................59 7. Assessment of Potential for Improving Agricultural Water Management in sub-Saharan Africa (IWMI).......................65 BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION ...........................................................................65 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE...............................................................................................65 METHODOLOGY AND ACTIVITIES.................................................................................65 SYNERGIES....................................................................................................................66 OUTPUTS.......................................................................................................................66 1
  3. 3. 8. Irrigation Cost Study in sub-Saharan Africa (World Bank and IWMI)............................................................................71 BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION............................................................................71 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE...............................................................................................72 METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................................72 Conceptual Framework..........................................................................................................................................73 ACTIVITIES....................................................................................................................74 SYNERGIES....................................................................................................................74 OUTPUTS.......................................................................................................................75 9. Study on Agricultural Water Development and Poverty Reduction in Eastern and Southern Africa (IFAD and IWMI)..88 BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION ...........................................................................88 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE...............................................................................................89 METHODOLOGY AND ACTIVITIES.................................................................................89 SYNERGIES WITH OTHER COMPONENTS.....................................................................92 OUTPUTS.......................................................................................................................92 10. Agricultural Water Use from a River Basin Perspective in sub-Saharan Africa (World Bank)....................................96 BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION ...........................................................................96 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE...............................................................................................97 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................97 OUTPUTS.......................................................................................................................98 APPENDIX 3: CONSOLIDATED REFERENCES............................................................................................................99 CONSOLIDATED REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................101 APPENDI 4. The Colloborative Program.................................................................................................................105 Investment in Agricultural Water Management in sub-Saharan Africa: Diagnosis os Trends and Opportunities............107 Membership of the Steering Committee and Working Group, and .................................................................................113 Program Coordinator......................................................................................................................................................113 Appendix 5. CVs of Key IWMI Staff Members.......................................................................................................115 2
  4. 4. List of Acronyms ADB-PEO - Asian Development Bank - Post Evaluation Office ADB - African Development Bank APPROTEC - Appropriate Technologies for Enterprise Creation AQUASTAT - FAO’s Information System on Water and Agriculture AT2030 - FAO Agricultural Trends up to 2030 AU - African Union CAADP - NEPAD Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program CCG - Collaborative Program Core Consultative Group CGIAR - Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research COMESA - Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa CTA - Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation EAP - East Asian and the Pacific countries E&CA - European and Central Asian countries ECA - United Nations Economic Commission for Africa ECOWAS - The Economic Community of West African States EW - Enterprise Works FAO - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FAO-AGLW - Water Resources, Development and Management Service of FAO FARA - Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa FMIS - Farmer-Managed Irrigation System GART - Golden Valley Agricultural Research Trust GDP - Gross Domestic Product GIEWS - Global Information and Early Warning System on Food and Agriculture GIS - Geographic Information System HIV/AIDS - Human Immunodeficiency Virus / Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome H&E - Health and Environment component of the Collaborative Program ICRISAT - International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics IDE - International Development Enterprises IFAD - International Fund for Agricultural Development IFPRI - International Food Policy Research Institute ILRI - International Livestock Research Institute IMT - Irrigation Management Transfer INRM - Integrated Natural Resource Management InWEnt - Capacity Building International, Germany IPTRID - International Program for Technology & Research in Irrigation and Drainage IRR - Internal Rate of Return IUCN - World Conservation Union IWMI - International Water Management Institute IWRM - Integrated Water Resource Management LAC - Latin American and Caribbean countries MENA - Middle East and North African countries MRFIP - Mara Region Farmers’ Initiative Project of Tanzania MUWSS - Multiple Use Water Supply Systems NEPAD - New Partnership for Africa’s Development NGO - Non-Government Organization PANAF - Pan Africa PIDP - Participatory Irrigation Development Program of Tanzania PHBM - Upper Mandrare Basin Development Project of Madagascar P&I - Planning and Implementation Process component of Collaborative Program 3
  5. 5. PMU - Project Management Unit PODIUM - Policy Dialogue Model PPP - Public-Private Partnership PSI - Collaborative Program Private Sector component REAP - Rural Enterprise Agri-Business Promotion Project of Kenya RWH - Rainwater Harvesting SA - South Asian countries SADC - Southern African Development Community SC - Collaborative Program Steering Committee SDARMP - Smallholder Dry Areas Resource Management Project of Zimbabwe SEDAP - South Eastern Dry Areas Project of Zimbabwe SIMA - System-wide Initiative on Malaria and Agriculture SMEs - Small and Medium Enterprises SPSS - Statistical Package for the Social Sciences SSA - sub-Saharan Africa SSI - Smallholder Systems Innovations TCP - FAO’s Technical Cooperation Program TOR - Terms of Reference TPs - Treadle Pumps UN - United Nations UNCED - United Nations Conference on Environment and Development UNESCAP - United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific USAID-IEHA - United States Agency for International Development – Initiative to End Hunger in Africa WATERSIM - Water, Agriculture, Technology, Environment and Resources Simulation Model WB - World Bank WB-OED - World Bank Operation Evaluation Department WG - Collaborative Program Working Group WWF - World Water Forum WWV - World Water Vision 4
  6. 6. APPENDIX 1. DETAILED METHODOLOGIES AND WORKPLANS FOR THE BANK SUPPORTED COMPONENTS 5
  7. 7. 1. Review of Irrigation Project Planning and Implementation Process BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION Disappointing results of irrigation development efforts in the past have often been associated with poor planning, appraisal and implementation of investment opportunities in Asia as well as Africa (Nijman 1991; 1992). Inadequate identification of suitable areas, failure to incorporate environmental, social and institutional issues, poor implementation, and absence of or weak data collection and monitoring have often caused low or even negative returns on investment, emergence of environmental and health problems, lack of sustainability, subsequent collapse of infrastructure, and emergence of a rehabilitation-lack of maintenance- rehabilitation cycle. Even where project design has been satisfactory, weak implementation capacity has often led to unsatisfactory results. Many projects in the past (not only agricultural projects) were designed and implemented in a top-down fashion, with little or no real participation of the supposed ‘beneficiaries’ in designing and implementing projects. Even where an element of ‘participation’ is built into projects, it is all too often largely in terms of inducing local investment of labor and not in real decision-making. Investments have often been driven by donors and governments, and not by the demands and wishes of potential beneficiaries. Even projects specifically intended to enhance farmers’ capacity for scheme management have often not succeeded, in part because of serious project design and implementation weaknesses (Shah et al. 2002). The main challenge in the sector is to create the environment for increased and sustainable agricultural production through efficient management of the existing irrigated lands and expansion into new areas to meet the food security targets and improve livelihood. This would imply development planning and mobilization of investment resources for implementation and operation of many projects over the coming decades. Weaknesses in the planning and implementation process have been identified at the Harare workshop and in other forums as one of the key issues that should be addressed to facilitate increased development in the sector. This is the justification for this component study. OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE The specific objective of the Planning and Implementation component is to identify ways to increase the performance and sustainability of investments in agricultural water, by identifying practical measures to improve project preparation and implementation. This includes planning, appraisal, implementation arrangements, supervision (or ‘implementation support’) and systems for monitoring and evaluation. Special attention will be paid to the institutional framework for project planning, appraisal and implementation, in terms of the incentives the different parties may have with respect to achieving the project goals. Ways to make projects more demand-driven, such that the water users are motivated and enabled to use the infrastructure productively and sustainably will be emphasized. This component will focus on agricultural water use projects funded by multilateral donors (World Bank, African Development Bank, IFAD) as well as 2 to 3 selected bilateral agencies. 6
  8. 8. METHODOLOGY Conceptual Framework Planning and implementation problems are often cited to explain the differences between objectives and achievements in past agricultural water use projects in Sub Saharan Africa. Moreover it is assumed that most of the technical failures have an institutional origin. Criteria used to judge these projects refer to their relevance and their efficacy. The efficacy of projects relates to how the results compare to the objectives, i.e., were the things done in the right way. The relevance of projects refers to how a set of objectives is defined, i.e., were the right things done1. These objectives are then compared to the national development plans and strategies. The idea is therefore to explain how planning and implementation processes may have an impact on the relevance and efficacy of the projects. The planning and implementation problems have already been well documented in many studies, with several contributions dating from the early 1990s (see for example Diemer and Vincent, 1992). Nevertheless, first the ranking of importance between these problems varies from one expert to another. Second, it is currently difficult to assess to what extent the problems diagnosed in the early 1990s still apply today. In a broad way, many of the problematic issues exposed in the early 1990s have been integrated in new policy frameworks: participation of beneficiaries in the design, attention to gender and the poorer components of the population, design of user associations to take over the operation and maintenance after project completion, relationships between the project management unit (PMU) and the governmental agencies, etc. While these elements are now part of the official discourse and thus more or less compulsorily present in project appraisal documents, more recent projects still show disappointing results vis-à-vis these issues. Therefore, it may be useful to assess to what extent the planning and implementation processes have really evolved by comparing projects implemented at different periods within the last twenty years. An assessment of some on-going projects may be considered. The various failures reported in the literature may occur at different stages of the planning and implementation process. Therefore, the proposed conceptual framework will be based on a description of the project life cycle, and on the identification of the different types of failure associated with each stage. Table 1.1 proposes a simplified description of a project cycle. The effectiveness of each stage is closely linked to the stakeholders involved in implementation and to the way the responsibilities are shared between them. Therefore it is important to clearly identify for each stage its requirements, the institution in charge, the expected outputs and the potential means of monitoring its execution. The institutional failures can be divided into three types: • a lack of capacity of one of the actors regarding one or more of the actions (planning, supervision, implementation, etc); • a lack of incentive to complete successfully the expected actions; and • a problem within the project lifecycle. There are also often trade-off between the benefits of an improvement of the institutional process and the costs it incurs. 1 For a precise definition of the terms “relevance”, “efficacy”, “efficiency”, see for instance World Bank, 1996. 7
  9. 9. For a specific project, the failures or successes at each stage of the project life cycle can be identified by answering the following questions: Table 1.1. Stages of a Project Cycle Stages of Project Cycle Relevant Project Documents/Reports Identification Country/Sector Reviews/Assessments from Identification Missions and country strategic plans and Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers Preparation Environmental Assessment Report, Pre- feasibility/Feasibility Studies Appraisal Project Appraisal Reports Negotiation Proof of Satisfaction of Donor Conditionalities Approval Detailed Project Appraisal Effectiveness Loan or Credit Agreements Implementation and Project Completion Reports Supervision Ex post Evaluation Project Evaluation/Performance Audit Reports Source: Project Cycles adapted from the World Bank, 2002. • What are the incentives of the various actors involved in the project (e.g., the investor, government officials, politicians, contractors, the presumed ‘beneficiaries’)? Are project objectives and the incentive structures aligned and consistent? Who are the losers and who are the gainers? How do these affect the project outcomes? • What is the quality of data used in planning, implementation, and monitoring? How effectively are these data used? Do all parties to the project have access to the data they need? How do these issues affect project outcomes? • How effective are the mechanisms for project management? Do all the key actors have a voice? Is there an effective transparent planning and monitoring process? Does the project have the support from the government, investors, and beneficiaries it requires for effective implementation? Are the decision-making, tendering, financial disbursement, etc. mechanisms effective, transparent, and consistent with best practice? How do these factors affect project outcomes? • How is the project design and implementation affected by government policies and capacities? Is the project consistent with government policies? Is the capacity of the implementing agency adequate for project implementation as agreed? If not, what is being done to ensure capacity is built? Is the project designed in a way to capture lessons that may be relevant for improving government policies? How do these factors affect project outcomes? Other issues to be at least partially addressed include the following: • Application of IWRM principles and treatment of agricultural water within the framework of holistic, integrated river basin management and integrated rural development approach or lack of it; • Suitability of physical design and choice of technology to the local situation; suitability of scale of project to local capacities and conditions; and • Strategy for capacity building, awareness and widening the knowledge base including public education; professional services and construction; research and technology adaptation. 8
  10. 10. This component will compile experiences of countries and the collaborating partners from past and recent project preparation and implementation, and analyze lessons learned to identify key constraints and innovative approaches to enable increased investment in the sector. The methodology will be, broadly, an “institutional analysis” drawing from sociology and institutional economics but focusing on identifying practical implementable suggestions for improvement without indulging in a broad theoretical critique of project design. The study will analyze the institutional and technical settings wherein projects are conceptualized, developed and implemented and eventually operated. The idea is to understand how these setting have contributed to a project’s success or failure. It will be conducted in three stages involving a) desk review, b) fieldwork and analysis and c) consolidation that will result in the final output. Desk Review The desk review work will focus on the analysis of past experiences and approaches of financing institutions, donors and countries to identify possible reasons for successes or failures and will take stock of the quality at entry, monitoring and implementation process to ensure project sustainability. The review will include selected projects funded by multilateral agencies such as World Bank, IFAD, and ADB as well as two to three selected bilateral agencies through visits to the offices of these institutions and use of their databases. We will also interview selected project managers to get their views and suggestions. A quite large and comprehensive sample of projects (20-30) will be selected for the desk review on the basis of an analysis of the data provided by the different agencies. The following selection criteria can be proposed: type of donors (multilateral, bilateral), English / French speaking countries, scheme size in terms of area, diverted water volume, or total cost of the project, date of implementation (to track changes in the planning processes), purpose of the project (large scale irrigation, small scale irrigation, rain fed agriculture, multipurpose use including irrigation). The review of selected projects will be conducted in the following manner: (1) Definition of a project lifecycle: First, a general outline of the overall process of planning and implementation will be described. The lifecycle of the project will be detailed using a Quality Management Approach: each step will be defined with its requirements, the institution in charge, the expected outputs and the potential means of monitoring the project. The review will be done for the whole cycle, i.e., both the design of objectives as well as the implementation. The differences among the donors’ systems and processes in conceptualizing/developing up to implementing of projects will be documented. (2) Qualitative analysis of the different causes of both success and failure for the whole lifecycle: Using the project lifecycle, the analysis will lead to a comprehensive list of causes for both success and failure at the different stages of a project. This qualitative analysis will assess the documented problems both for the relevance and efficacy of a project. Regarding the relevance of the project, the study will use existing assessments: evaluations reports as well as research reports. The efficacy of projects will be assessed in the short term by the donors’ evaluation documents (project completion reports). The long term functioning of the project will be assessed with the donors’ documents (e.g., project audit reports), but since they are rare, the bulk of information will come from existing research documents. (3) The identified solutions and the successful projects: Causes for failure have been already analyzed and, for many of them, a partial or complete solution was proposed. The study will 9
  11. 11. review the different investigations made, the solutions proposed and some potential case studies where the proposed remedies have been applied. (4) Analysis of the internal quality control set up by the donors and implementing agencies: This previous analysis will partially enable to assess the current quality control mechanisms within the project lifecycle. For instance, it will assess to what extent the Quality at Entry methodology succeeds in assessing the potential risks for failure. To achieve this analysis, all the available Project Completion Reports, Project Audit Reports, country assessments and other analyses made by the Statistics or Evaluation Department must be made available by selected donors (World Bank, IFAD, ADB, and two to three bilateral donors). The information will be gathered from these studies, from available research done and from direct interviews with evaluators, contractors and Development Agencies representatives. Being a desk analysis, this research will not be able to fully assess potential mistakes or bias in the different project documents. The fieldwork organized for the second component will enable to analyze this issue on a limited amount of case studies. This stage will be completed four months after commencement. Case studies The second stage consists of in-depth analysis of selected in-country case studies. Much of this work will be carried out with help from national consultants, who will be provided with questionnaires, guidelines and criteria for making assessments and judgments. Selected projects will be analyzed to evaluate the key aspects of failures and successes and to draw lessons. It is expected that 3-4 cases will be selected for the fieldwork taking into consideration regional balance and relevance. A period of six months may be required to complete the fieldwork. The analysis will cover the full project cycle activities with emphasis on institutional and technical aspects. This stage has two objectives. First, an evaluation of the relevance of the project will be completed. Second, the analysis will focus on the supervision of the project by the donor and implementation by the national governments or designated (national) agencies. The evaluation of the relevance will look at how the objectives were chosen and will include looking at relationships between stakeholders, the extent and quality of stakeholder participation in the different aspects of project planning and implementation and even in choosing from various technical options if several options were indeed considered. We hypothesize the extent and quality of stakeholder participation is a key determinant of success. This will enable assessment of the extent to which criteria other than the IRR (e.g., equity, environmental impact) are taken into account and the corresponding consequences. The study will detail the shortcomings of the current criteria (for instance, the fact that the IRR may not take into account heterogeneity among the beneficiaries, externalities and spill over effects such as secondary benefits) but it will not propose a full new set of criteria (a whole literature exists already on this issue). The World Bank Operation Evaluation Department (WB-OED) for instance can assist in providing the framework and tool for doing an impact evaluation that compares ex post the benefits of the project with and without the project (WB-OED, 2002). The analysis of supervision will look at the possible discrepancies between the projects’ successes and failures and the accounts given in the supervision and evaluation documents issued by the donor (see Clements, 1999, for an example of such analysis). 10
  12. 12. The case studies will be chosen using three criteria: (1) use of evaluation reports and expert knowledge to choose recent completed projects; (2) assessment of different technologies (large-scale and small-scale schemes, treadle pumps for instance); and (3) cooperation with the other component studies to improve the synergies. Some fieldwork will be done, especially to understand ex post how the project was designed step by step. The government agency as well as the beneficiaries will be interviewed to get their point of view on the way the project was designed. Synthesis The third stage of the study will be an analysis and evaluation of the consolidated results from both the desk review and field work, and comparison of these to results from related studies in Africa and other regions. A draft report on the major lessons learned and providing key recommendations to investors and countries to make project planning and implementation more effective and innovative will be prepared. This will be presented to the general stakeholder workshop together with the results of other components to obtain further ideas for improvement before the report is finalized. The results of the workshop will be incorporated into the main report of the overall study. This stage is expected to be completed about two months after completion of the field studies. ACTIVITIES The different activities following submission of this Inception Report include: (1) elaboration and refinement of the approach and conceptual framework; (2) carrying out of a desk review which will include library search within and outside IWMI, literature compilation, contacting of donors and other relevant organizations and searching for databases and required documents, and setting the criteria for choosing case studies; (3) selection of case studies and implementation which will include preparation of terms of reference and identification of regional consultants; (4) writing of component report which will synthesize findings from desk review and field study; and (5) contributing to overall investment study synthesis. The study will be implemented by IWMI and ADB using in-house capacity and through the engagement of consultants and technical assistance staff. The ADB will finance the major cost of the study through IWMI who will be responsible for executing the study and hence will provide the major inputs required. IWMI will use its own staff and as necessary engage its own experts, using regional and national consultants and other technical and logistical support as necessary. Annex 1.2 provides details on tasks and planned staffing while Annex 1.3 provides details on timing and milestones. SYNERGIES Findings of the planning and implementation study will serve as inputs to the other components of the Collaborative Program just as P&I will benefit from their findings. The qualitative analysis of the P&I will clearly complement the quantitative analysis to be undertaken under the cost study. Specifically, this component will examine how the nature of organizations involved into these processes and their inter-relationships can impact on the costs of a project (for example the procedure for choosing project consultants and contractors, and the capacities of the national irrigation agencies among others). Similarly, the effects of public participation on the costs will be assessed jointly by the both components. As much as possible, the projects analyzed for the desk review and the case studies will be selected according the same criteria and from the same database as the cost study. 11
  13. 13. The P&I study will examine how the health and environmental impacts of agricultural water use investments are taken in consideration in the planning and implementation processes, and how the institutional features of agricultural water investments may have positive or negative impacts on human health and the environment The involvement in the P&I process of different types of decision makers, including farmers themselves, small and medium enterprises, and other private entities, will be assessed. Those decision makers will be interviewed during the field work. This will clearly be relevant to the private sector component. Using the conceptual framework elaborated under the poverty component, the P&I study will look at how the issue of poverty reduction is addressed in planning and implementation phases. This component will assess to what extent the benefits of the agricultural water investments according to categories of beneficiaries (particularly the poorest and the women) are measured and factored into decision-making. Where available data and information will allow, the project planning and implementation process among NGOs involved in the development of small-scale irrigation technologies, such as Enterprise Works (EW) or Approtec, will be compared with the P&I processes of multilateral donors and national governments. Finally, this component will assess to what extent the stakeholders’ role and their negotiating power can explain the way markets and market opportunities are considered in project planning. For example, were the local agricultural processing and marketing companies involved in the planning process? At which stage of the project are the marketing aspects taken up? On what basis were the hypotheses about demand for agricultural products formulated? These questions will link the P&I to the regional demand for irrigated agricultural products component. OUTPUTS This analysis will enable identification of hypotheses concerning the most important reasons for both success and failure due to planning and implementation (P&I) if any; the differences between the donors’ P&I processes and any steps that donors have put into effect to address past weaknesses in P&I. More important, it will identify specific practical recommendations to improve planning and implementation of future projects. The main outputs of the desk review will be: 1) a compilation of data on completed projects, identification of specific issues and hypotheses regarding P&I factors affecting project successes and failures; and 2) a detailed work plan for the field work stage. This work plan will include proposed questionnaires or survey instruments, and criteria to be used in making assessment of such issues as the quality of data used in planning, effectiveness of management mechanisms, and incentives of the various actors involved in project design and implementation. A report providing the results of the desk study and proposed work plan for the second stage will be submitted for review and comments by the Working Group. The main outputs from the case studies will be a better understanding of the way agricultural water use projects are planned and implemented at country level and insights into key reasons for project failures and successes as related to project planning and implementation. In addition, the cases will present the point of view of the stakeholders (government, beneficiaries, consultant, and contractors) on issues and concerns within a project’s lifecycle. A report describing the cases studied and findings will be submitted at the end of the fieldwork to the Working Group. 12
  14. 14. To summarize, this component will produce the following outputs: • Draft and final report on the findings of the desk studies and literature review; • Draft and final report on the findings of the in-country field studies (as well as reports on each case); and • Draft and final report on the overall findings and recommendations. 13
  15. 15. ANNEX 1.1 Logframe Intervention Logic Objectively Verifiable Indicators Means of Verification Assumptions Overall Objective To catalyze increased investment in agricultural Increased levels of investment in Annual reports by donors Investors willing to invest in good water use for poverty alleviation in Sub-Saharan agricultural water use in SSA. and governments. projects. Water use for agriculture Africa. investments will give good returns. Cost-effective opportunities do exist. Immediate Objective To improve the planning, design and Set of clear recommendations on Final Report. Governments and donors willing to implementation of agricultural water use projects ways to improve planning, design implement improvements. in Sub-Saharan Africa. and implementation of projects. Purpose To answer the following questions in the context Studies and sub-studies completed. Periodic progress reports Questions posed are relevant and of SSA: and Final Report answerable. − What is the institutional framework of the Project selection, design and project lifecycle? What are the institutional implementation can be improved. reasons for failure of the past agricultural Access to Donors’ information water use projects in SSA? How these regarding the planning and reasons evolved in the past years? What is implementation of past agricultural their relative importance? What are the water use projects opportunities for improvement? − How the objectives of the project were chosen? What are the perceptions of stakeholders regarding the current project lifecycle? To what extent the supervision and evaluation documents issued by the Donors give an accurate description of the project? − What are the new methodologies regarding planning and implementation currently tested by the Donors? What are the opportunities and the risks? Outputs Studies and sub-studies completed. Periodic progress reports and Final Research Report Analysis of project management cycle and Data available for the analysis general analysis of the reasons for failure of past agricultural water use projects in SSA In-depth analysis of some completed projects Data available for the analysis Concrete recommendations on specific ways to Governments will be responsive to improve planning and implementation of recommendations made and strategies agricultural water use projects proposed. 14
  16. 16. Intervention Logic Objectively Verifiable Indicators Means of Verification Assumptions Recommendations for any necessary follow-up Funds will subsequently be available research. Activities 1. Literature search and review Bibliography and citations Periodic reports and Final Adequate relevant material available. Study Report 2. Case studies and analysis Contribution made/relevance to Final Study Report Representative cases available. In- overall study country commitment and cooperation. 3. Preparation of recommendations and Implementable strategic guidelines Final Study Report Commitment to strategic thrusts strategy formulation 15
  17. 17. ANNEX 1.2 Task and Staff Time Allocation 1 Tasks Sub tasks IWMI staff and time (days) Consultant and cost Output (1000 $) Desk review SM 10 Desk review report JS 44 HS 6 DM 1 Case studies Preparation SM 5 TORs for consultants JS 10 In countries field work JS 20 27 Case studies individual reports Analysis of case studies and SM 10 Field study report write report JS 10 HS 6 DM 1 P&I synthesis report SM 10 P&I synthesis report JS 10 HS 3 DM 2 Overall project synthesis report Contribution to draft report SM 3 Draft overall report JS 2 HS 3 DM 1 Stakeholder workshop SM 2 Workshop report JS 2 HS 2 DM 2 Contribution to final report SM 2 Final overall report JS 2 HS 2 DM 4 Total SM 42 JS 100 HS 22 DM 11 SM - Dr. Sylvie Morardet, Pretoria JS - Mr. Jetrick Seshoka, Pretoria HS - Dr. Hilmy Sally, Pretoria DM - Dr. Douglas Merrey, Pretoria 16
  18. 18. ANNEX 1.3 Gantt Chart Project Name Agricultural water Investments Study: P & I component Project code 34P20SA AFB14 Dec-03 Jan-04 Feb-04 Mar-04 Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04 Task Description Key person 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 Inception report SM/DM 1.1 Design approach NF/SM 1.2 Develop conceptual framework NF/SM milestone Inception report 31/01/04 1.3 Review and feedback by ADB and WG ADB and partners 2 Desk review SM/JS 2.1 Initiate IWMI library search SM/JS 2.2 Compile existing literature JS 2.3 Contact donors and other organizations SM/HS/DM 2.4 Search through donors’ databases JS 2.5 Select the projects for desk review SM/HS/DM 2.6 Complete project fact sheet SM/JS 2.7 Analyze data SM/JS Set up detailed work plan for field study and 2.8 criteria for choosing case studies SM/JS/HS/DM 2.9 Write desk review report SM/HS/DM milestone Desk review report 30/04/04 2.1 Review and feedback by ADB and WG ADB and partners 3 Case studies SM/JS/consultants 3.1 Select cases studies SM/HS/DM 3.2 Prepare TORs for consultants SM/JS/HS/DM 3.3 Identify consultants and contract with them SM/HS/DM 3.4 Adapt TORs with consultants SM/JS 3.5 Complete case studies JS/consultants 3.6 Write case studies individual reports JS/consultants 3.7 Process and analyze data SM/JS 3.8 Write Case Studies - report SM/JS/HS/DM milestone Case studies report 31/08/04 3.9 Review and feedback by ADB and WG ADB and partners 4 P&I component synthesis SM/JS/HS/DM 4.1 Pooled data analysis SM/JS/HS/DM 4.2 Write P&I component draft report SM/JS/HS/DM milestone P&I Component draft report 31/09/04 4.3 Review and feedback by ADB and WG ADB and partners 4.4 Write P&I component final report milestone P&I Component final report 31/10/04 5 Overal project synthesis 5.1 Contribute to draft synthesis report milestone Draft synthesis report 30/11/04 5.2 Workshop with key stakeholders and WG 5.3 Contribute to final synthesis report milestone Final synthesis report milestones 17
  19. 19. 2. Opportunities for Private Sector Participation in Agricultural Water Development and Management BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION The volume of public investments in agriculture has been decreasing in many African countries. But the volume of investments by the private sector is probably increasing, and there is scope for a significant further rise if the conditions are right and facilitation is provided. Our definition of “private sector” includes farmers and micro small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in agriculture: i.e., in crop production, livestock production, fisheries, in marketing these products, post harvest and food processing, and in supply chains for goods uses in the agricultural production process. More specifically, the ‘private sector’ comprises: • Farmers in rainfed and in irrigated agriculture using their own financial resources, with or without external support; • Irrigation technology manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and retailers; • Irrigation development consulting firms, contracting firms; • Non-governmental organizations, parastatals and private sector entities promoting irrigated agriculture in various ways; • Emerging/spontaneous market linkage initiatives: e.g., provision of support services, peri-urban agriculture, out-grower schemes, contract farming; • Private entities that manage irrigation schemes -- irrigation management transfer (IMT) is one such example where individual farmers (or more usually, groups of farmers) take over responsibility for operation and maintenance and management of existing government-built irrigation schemes; private investments and participation in the creation of new agricultural water development facilities and the expansion/upgrading of existing schemes; and • In general, those providing input and output marketing services. It is often not recognized that many poor smallholder farmers do have access to funds and are willing to invest in their agricultural enterprises if conditions are promising. Facilitation of this process requires changes in the direction of efforts by public sector actors and donors, and financially only moderate investments. Another aspect of the primary production process often ignored is that rainfed agriculture (i.e., crop production with little or no supplement of water) accounts for 60% of Africa’s food production and 80% of its employment. But rainfed agriculture generally produces much below its potential, among others because water supply is too irregular. However, with moderate investments in small scale water technologies (i.e., investments in equipment, training, and empowerment together), both stability and productivity of smallholder farming can rise so that commercial production becomes viable. Recent estimates by FAO indicate that 75% of the agricultural growth required in SSA by 2030 will have to come from intensification (in the form of yield increases and higher cropping intensities), with the remaining 25% coming from arable land expansion. As a prerequisite for intensification, agricultural water development will clearly be a major means of poverty reduction for the region. Supplementary irrigation in smallholder rainfed agriculture requires small scale approaches and in principle lends itself well to investments that many of the poor farmers could make. One important issue for governments and donors is to empower poor farmers. Investments in African irrigation have been largely driven by donors and governments. There is growing awareness and explicit recognition of the variety of roles that the private sector 18
  20. 20. can actually play in agricultural production, often outside the formal, public sector. This has given rise to a number of initiatives to promote private sector participation in irrigation and agriculture, in smallscale irrigated areas as well as for the larger irrigation schemes. The recent conference that scrutinized African Successes (NEPAD-IFPRI-CTA-INWENT, 2003) recommended as very effective investments by African governments to increase food security and improve livelihoods: (1) the mobilizing and empowering of smallholder farmers and farmer organizations, and (2) the development of agricultural markets. A World Bank report (World Bank-PSDED 1993) highlights key lessons on the respective roles of the private sector and governments with special emphasis on the development of markets. Despite structural adjustments and efforts to provide the enabling environment for more private investment or private sector participation in irrigation, “markets [just] do not spring magically to life as the public sector downsizes.” The NEPAD Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP) recognizes that one of the four critical needs identified for moving from dialogue to action is a “concerted action to promote private sector engagement and interest” (NEPAD, 2003). Intensification of agriculture needs a wide range of enterprises that supply inputs (seed, fertilizer, water, equipment, information, etc) and a wide range of enterprises that deal with produce (transport, food processing, selling, etc). Many of these are very small (micro- enterprises), many are small, some are medium sized. The very diverse group is here taken under the term of micro SMEs. Intensification of agriculture needs to go hand in hand with intensification of agricultural micro SMEs. Public sector actors, particularly government agencies and also donors, have a big role to play with respect to private sector investments. On the one hand there is the priming of investments to kick start processes, but mainly there is the facilitation of the investment process such that farmers and micro SMEs are encouraged to proceed. Facilitation includes training, demonstration, information centres, adequate legislation, setting up institutions to empower farmers and micro SMEs, quality control of agricultural inputs and produce, transfer of management of irrigation schemes to empowered farmers, arranging for credit schemes, etc. Facilitation, which requires effort and hence money, is more important than financial investment per se. We may identify also cases where government investments (read ‘interventions’) in the past were stifling local development by imposing rigid guidelines where flexibility (towards natural conditions) is required and stimulating production when markets cannot absorb the produce, and by guaranteeing fixed but low prices. Disinvestment, rather than investment, is the keyword here. Interesting examples (Office du Niger in Mali, the northern Plateau in Burkina Faso) will be analyzed. OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE The goal of this component is to recommend ways to promote private sector participation in agricultural water use for poverty reduction, food security and economic growth in sub- Saharan Africa (SSA). The specific objectives are: • To show that the private sector is very large and diverse, as it includes hundreds of millions of small farmers in addition to the many small agricultural enterprises, and particularly that the sector can be a major source of investments; 19
  21. 21. • To identify the “do’s and don’ts” with respect to facilitation of investments by the private sector; and • To recommend practical ways by which governments and donors can promote private sector investments or to remove constraints, e.g., by encouraging PPP’s such as water users associations. The study will consider different types of agricultural water development and water use, including subsistence agriculture, cultivation of profit-oriented high-value crops, smallholder farming, and peri-urban agriculture. It will examine successful examples of private sector involvement in the various functions or processes, including planning, design, construction, operations and maintenance, rehabilitation and modernization, monitoring and evaluation. It will, to the extent possible, seek synergies with the typologies/schemes being used by other components of the overall agricultural water use investment research program. The study will focus on investment decisions that are made in agriculture at the household level, at the community level, in micro SMEs, and on those by governments that do affect significantly the conditions that influence decisions by households, communities and enterprises. METHODOLOGY We focus on the decisions about investments by and for the private sector. How can these be guided, promoted? We distinguish four primary levels of decisions on investments by and for the private sector: • Decisions by individual farmers. Many of them (1) have few natural and other resources. This may be the largest group, and is difficult to reach. There are also (2) many farmers, sometimes called emerging or new commercial farmers, who are already active participants in the market economy. Thirdly, there are also (3) large commercial farmers who are already real entrepreneurs. (Note that a ‘farmer’ is more often a woman then a man, and increasingly a ‘weak’ person due to age (old or very young), HIV/AIDS and works under severe constraints of available labor). • Decisions by farmer organizations and communities. • Decisions by (1) national institutes and (2) government agencies that affect the private sector, such as regarding rules and regulations and investments in infrastructure. • Decisions by micro, small and medium size agricultural enterprises that affect the use of water, such as regarding supply chains of agricultural products, produce markets. This study will bring together from formal and informal sources, knowledge about successful investments by and for members of the private sector. This will provide a view of the current types and levels of investment by the private sector itself. It will also show examples of how the public sector can facilitate this process. For a number of gaps in the knowledge about private sector investments, we will carry out fieldwork to find answers to targeted questions. The insights into the ‘what’, ‘why’ and ‘who’ in decision making for investments will lead us to recommendations for governments and investment banks with respect to what they can do with and for the key actors. This study will consider a range of elements of the enabling environment, including: • the regulatory policies that determine access to and efficient allocations of resources or inputs (such as labor, capital, land and water); • the principal determinants of the costs of transactions for the private sector player; 20
  22. 22. • the factors (e.g., related to institutions, finance, marketing) that contribute to or hinder the acquisition of technological capability and the consequent development and distribution/marketing of “appropriate” technology; • the operation of support services/agents; and • private sector responses to deficiencies in management of infrastructure. ACTIVITIES A review of the formal and informal literature on agricultural investments in Africa will be carried out with 5 foci: (1) on investments that depend on decisions made by individual farm households (with attention to the role women play in decisions making and including the conditions under which off-farm incomes is invested in agriculture), (2) decisions made by small communities and groups of farmers, (3) decisions made by micro SMEs, (4) and decisions made by governments, major donors and investment banks about the private sector investment opportunities. (5) The Asian experience will be brought in and scrutinized for relevance in the African situation. For the review, we draw on experiences acquired in the field of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) outside agriculture (e.g., in the field of solar energy and input supply). We will also make use of the findings of a number of recent reviews of private irrigation development conducted by organizations such as the World Bank, Winrock, IPTRID and IWMI, as well as the results of research and case studies published in the Proceedings of the FAO-IWMI-CTA Regional Seminar on Private Sector Participation and Irrigation Expansion in sub-Saharan Africa (Sally and Abernethy 2002). There will be gaps in the information obtained from literature that can be filled, partially, through rapid surveys, probably at the farm, community and micro SME levels of decision making. Through such targeted surveys in several African countries, we will uncover some of that information. In this phase, the role of African consultants and partners will be important. Recommendations will be formulated for government and for investment banks with respect to each of the four categories of decision making. These will be exposed to seasoned decision makers before the final report is finished. The results of the previous three tasks (review, new knowledge, recommendations) will be presented in full in reports. The final report will present a brief summary of these and highlight the recommendations. Annexes 2.2 and 2.3 provide information on the tasks, staffing, and milestones. SYNERGIES This study has strong synergies with other ongoing IWMI research projects as well as with other components of the Collaborative Program. Insofar as IWMI research is concerned, it will draw on the following projects: • Multiple Use Water Supply Systems, a Challenge Program on Water and Food research project in 5 major river basins and with 6 lead and 20 local partners to identify models for self financing by rural communities of water supply systems that satisfy both productive and domestic needs; • The Small-scale Water System Innovations project, in which 6 Ph.D. studies are being carried out to determine how small scale innovations in water management affect the catchment and basin water flows; • The ‘Bright Spots’ project in which we analyze why certain communities escape poverty and emerge as bright spots in their environment, and how this process could 21
  23. 23. be repeated elsewhere. A follow up of this work is being prepared, among others with IFPRI and NEPAD; • Waste water research in peri-urban environments where investments by small farmers and entrepreneurs are doing very well, economically; • Analysis of the impact of farmer investments in treadle pumps, 10 years after their introduction, in Kenya; and • A state of the art review of ‘Micro-irrigation”. The work carried out under these research projects includes documentation and analyses of various smallholder activities and initiatives in water and agriculture, and the associated factors that determine their success or otherwise. These are, in fact, different forms of private sector participation in agricultural water use. The results, findings and lessons learnt will enrich and broaden the private sector component of the Collaborative Program. In addition, this study will pull together aspects of the other component studies, in particular the ‘poverty’ and ‘planning’ components, which deal with the private sector. The poverty component examines and analyzes the impacts of private sector agricultural water initiatives on poverty reduction. It will identify factors that motivate and facilitate private sector participation and investment and thereby also contribute to the private sector study. The private sector study brings together in a single component the various areas of private sector contribution and performance in agricultural water use. This component will therefore provide a better understanding of the sector, what it does best and under what conditions it can contribute to improving project planning and implementation. Governments, donors and other role-players will thereby obtain clarity on what incentives and policy environment to put into effect in order to promote and sustain even greater private sector participation. 22
  24. 24. ANNEX 2.1 Logframe 43
  25. 25. ANNEX 2.2 Tasks and Staff time allocation, Workplan Task Subtask Keywords IWMI Staff Consultant Method/Output Links with other Funds INTERVENTION LOGIC OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLEAnnex 3) (name, costMEANS OF VERIFICATION (see INDICATORS in ASSUMPTIONS projects and –time US$) Goal (days) Increased levels of investment in agricultural Donor and government Global economic environment does not 1. Literature review 1.1 Investments Amounts, water useequity, To promote innovative private sector participation in sources, in SSA HS 5 (e.g., review by reports Literature, recent hold up ‘Publications’ African development; by farmers agricultural water use for poverty reduction, foodgender, decisions, in agricultural GDP 5 Growth small scale FPV N. Moon,National workshops (UNESCAP- and regional Governance of countries becomes security and economic growth in sub-Saharan Africaequipment (TPs, drip irrigation, Approtec;policy documents 2k) IWMI-FAO) / =Annex 1,increasingly pro-poor. (SSA). soil improvements) 10 pg National statistics Purpose 1.2 Investments Amounts, Written control, evaluated 10recommendations Final project report received. Investors willing SSI, invest in good sources, and HS C. Nakhumwa, Literature, input from MUWSS, to by community, ways of The goal of this component is to recommend initiative, governments stream FMIS, RWH, and donors to promote greater 3k MUWSS-study (BvK); projects.‘wetlands’ farmer in agricultural promoting private sector participation diversions, wetlands; credits participation of private sector in national and Ngigis work, African organization Successes-IFPRI-NEPADConducive investment environment and water use for poverty reduction, food security and regional investment strategies and plans economic growth in sub-Saharan Africa. / =Annex 2 10 pg acceptable level of returns that 1.3 Investments Amounts, by whom, conditions; AI 2 Literature, NGO encourage and sustain investments by micro SMEs role credits; regulations and ‘red experiences / =Annex 3 tape’ 15 pp Outputs 1.4 Investment Facts, trends, impacts, power Report written. AI 10 (e.g., Dr Report received. I. Literature / =Annex Credible primary data collected without 4, 8 A report identifying decisions by relations, land tenure and water final report disseminated Consultations held and Hannam, CEL, pg delay. - opportunities and constraints for private rights and access; legislation, governments and sector 3.5 k) donors development and investments in agricultural water certification, training management 1.5 Asian Drivers in success stories FPV 3 (e.g., W. Techo, Literature (incl. Report Bright Spots experiences - recommendations to governments, investment banks TS 2 PDA, or Deepak KP et.al. on opportunities and donors on how they can promote such investments Adikari, IDE 2k) Asian technology in E. Africa) / = Annex 5, 8 pg 2. New knowledge Activities 2.1 Investments Small scale technologies incl FPV 7 (will be annexesMuliokela, Survey, analysis, Consultants/national researchers with Reports of components written (e.g., Progress reports overall Poverty by farmers micro-irrigation, water+compost BvK 1 Review literature on decision making with respect to in the full report). GART 2k) conclusions; / =Annex 6, track records can be found. study coordinator received. good component, private sector investment in agricultural (Ghana), conservation tillage water AK 2 d 10 pg ‘IFAD’ study; development and management in SSA; OC 3 d Ghana waste water 2.2 Investments FMIS, RWH, stream diversions, analyzed. 3 d B. Mati, JKU, 3k Survey, analysis, Fill gaps in knowledge regarding key issues through Surveys conducted and HS 7d AK primary research. by community, wetlands; ways to organize and OC 2 conclusions; Ngigi’s farmer Recommendation written. secure investments work, African Successes Develop recommendations for action by governments, organizations (incl. ‘Office du Niger’, investment banks and donors. C. Rey) / =Annex 7 10 pp Progress reports to the overall study coordinator. Coordination of the study team. Investments 2.3 Farm inputs (information, AI 10 d Survey, analysis, by micro SMEs annual supplies, one off conclusions / =Annex 8, investments), farm outputs 10 pp (markets, transport), supply chain. 3. 3.1 To empower Information services, socio- FPV 4 For 3.1-3.4: 10-20 recommendations 43
  26. 26. Task Subtask Keywords IWMI Staff Consultant Method/Output Links with other Funds (see Annex 3) (name, cost in projects and –time US$) (days) Recommendations farmers econ. environment, ownership, consultant plus actors to governments, training advised by investment banks, NEPAD, 2.5 k donors 3.2 To empower Facilitate creation farmer HS 4 10-20 recommendations communities organizations, institutions, plus actors opening markets 3.3 For public Adequate ownership, AI 4 10-20 recommendations sector actions regulations, enforcing plus actors 3.4 For public- Creating markets, auctions, AI 4 10-20 recommendations private information provision (e.g., plus actors partnerships MSSRF and Kenyan example) 4. Coordination 4.1 Project FPV 10 Professional Final Report Component coordination, editing 2k PSI; 10-20 pp, with 8 report annexes Total 96 d US$ 20 k 10-20 pp, plus 100 pp in Annexes Abbreviations used: AI - Dr. Arlene Inocencio, IWMI-Pretoria AK - Dr Abdul Kamara, IWMI-Accra BvK- Dr Barbara van Koppen, IWMI-Pretoria OC - Dr Funke Cofie, IWMI-Accra FPV - Dr Frits Penning de Vries, IWMI-Pretoria HS - Dr Hilmy Sally, IWMI-Pretoria TS - Dr. Tushar Shaah, IWMI-Gujarat 25
  27. 27. ANNEX 2.3 Gantt Chart 26
  28. 28. Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Task Description Key person 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 1Inception report FPV milestone Inception report 31/01/04 Review and feedback by ADB and WG ADB and partners 2Desk review FPV 2.1Farmer investment FPV/HS 2.2Community investments HS 2.3Micro SME's investments AI 2.4Ownership of resources AI 2.5Relevant Asian experiences FPV/TS milestone Desk review report 15/04/04 2.1Review and feedback by ADB and WG ADB and partners 3New knowledge FPV 3.1Farmer investments FPV/BvK/AK/OC 3.2Community investments HS/AK/OC 3.3SME & micro SME's investments AI milestone Case studies report 31/08/04 3.4Review and feedback by ADB and WG ADB and partners Recommendations to governments, 4investments banks, other donors FPV 4.1To empower farmers FPV 4.2To empower and facilitate communities FPV 4.3For public sector actions FPV 4.4For public-private partnerships FPV milestone Draft Component report 31/09/04 4.5Review and feedback by ADB and WG ADB and partners 4.6Write component final report FPV milestone Component final report 31/10/04 27
  29. 29. 28
  30. 30. 3. Health and Environmental Aspects BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION Development of water resources for agriculture impacts on human health and the environment in multiple, varied and complex ways. Often yields in irrigated agriculture are higher than in rain fed agriculture making more food or income available to farmers. This may lead to better nutrition and so increase resistance to disease or increased income may be spent on improved health care. Changes in the environment caused through agricultural water development can have both positive and negative implications for health. For example, increased availability of water, even of relatively low quality, can greatly reduce water- washed diseases. Conversely by providing breeding sites for disease vectors, such as Anopheles mosquitoes and snails, there may be an increase in water-related diseases, such as malaria and schistosomiasis (Boelee, 2003). Agricultural water development also causes social changes that impact on health. For example, seasonal labourers can bring infectious and non-communicable diseases to an area. Today, SSA is bearing the brunt of the HIV/AIDS crisis (approximately 75% of the 42 million people living with the disease are in Africa) and many rural communities, now and in the future, have to deal with consequences of the epidemic. Since, it often strikes during the most productive years (i.e., ages 15 to 49) HIV/AIDS has severe implications for the availability of agricultural labour. However, good nutrition is recognized as being key to helping people fight HIV/AIDS related infections and food security, enhanced through agricultural water development, can make an important contribution to alleviating the devastating impact of HIV/AIDS. Agricultural water development can have a significant impact on livestock-keeping with associated health and environment implications. In many irrigation systems livestock not only benefit from the easing of water supply constraints, but may also be major consumers of crop residues. Livestock keeping may be a positive benefit to health, not just through contribution to improved nutrition and wealth, but also indirectly through processes such as zooprophylaxis (i.e., reduction in malaria prevalence caused by mosquitoes being attracted to cattle in preference to people). It can also make significant contributions to environmental protection, particularly in mixed farming systems where there are appropriate balances of crops and animals. On the other hand, livestock grazing may have undesirable environmental and health implications. For example, watering at wells and along the edges of water bodies such as reservoirs leads to removal of vegetation, increased sedimentation, water pollution through feces and urine, contamination of domestic water with zoonotic parasites and may create environments more favourable for insects that transmit diseases. The impact of livestock often extends over large areas, even when the water development is relatively small. In many cases the negative impacts of agricultural water development may be mitigated and the positive impacts enhanced through careful design and management. Measures for environmental control are primarily focused on approaches that prevent negative impacts through improved scheme design. For example, by designing systems which simultaneously reduce the chances of soil erosion and avoid the characteristics that favour the development of habitat suitable for disease vectors. In some cases investments in improved management of existing systems may lead to significant improvements in health and the environment. For administrative purposes the livestock module of the investments project is included within the Health and Environment (H & E) component. The livestock module will include an evaluation of the H & E implications of modifying livestock management as a result of 29
  31. 31. investments in agricultural water. However, it will not be limited to inputs to this component alone. Contributions of the livestock module to other components are presented in the relevant sections of this report and a full description of the livestock component is given in Section 4. OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE Clearly, an understanding of H & E implications of investments in agricultural water development is a prerequisite to deciding when and where investments are most appropriate and for improving design and management. The objective of this component of the investment study is to contribute to a better understanding of: • the environmental and health implications (positive and negative) of different forms of agricultural water development in SSA, and • the opportunities for mitigating negative impacts and promoting positive impacts. This component will utilize findings from the CGIARs Systemwide Initiative on Malaria and Agriculture (SIMA) that is coordinated by IWMI and is investigating water and land practices across a range of crops and ecosystems to determine the farming activities that encourage and discourage, the breeding of malaria vector mosquitoes. It will also incorporate findings from existing IWMI programs, including research relating to: i) the risks and benefits derived from the use of waste-water in irrigation; ii) approaches to reduce malaria in paddy cultivation; and iii) the health impacts associated with rainwater harvesting and small-scale water storage. In addition it will utilize results obtained from a wide range of ILRI projects as well as other CGIAR and non-CGIAR studies. METHODOLOGY This study will provide evidence-based recommendations geared to informing decision- making about investments in agricultural water development. For the H & E component to fulfil this objective it is necessary to provide insights that can be generalized and from which patterns or trends for particular types of agricultural water development scheme2 can be derived. This is a complicated task for a number of reasons: • All schemes are unique. The magnitude and nature of H & E impacts depend on the juxtaposition of a wide range of biophysical and socio-economic factors and complex interactions between the design of the scheme and the way that it is operated. • Schemes do not occur in isolation (either in space or time) and it is often difficult to isolate the impact of the scheme from other factors causing change. • Small incremental changes are difficult to measure and may go unnoticed. • Neither the costs nor the benefits of schemes are evenly distributed amongst different social groups and stakeholders. • H & E impacts of a scheme may occur a great distance from where it is implemented. In order to develop generic findings and enable recommendations to be made a systematic approach to data collection and evaluation is required. To this end the H & E study will be based on the following four elements: • a classification of investment types (i.e., a typology of schemes) • a classification of agroecological regions/agricultural production systems • a conceptual framework to evaluate the impacts of schemes and in which the linkages between environment and health are made as explicit as possible. 2 In this component of the project the word “scheme” is used to encompass not only traditional or formal irrigation systems but also non-traditional, informal, investments such as small-scale development (e.g., treadle pumps and collector wells, etc.). 30
  32. 32. • quantitative information that can be linked directly to the type of scheme and/or the agroecological region/agricultural production system in which the scheme is located. Scheme Typology In common with many complex systems, agricultural water schemes have numerous characteristics that can be used as the basis of classification and a wide range of typologies has been developed (e.g., by FAO). For use in this component a preliminary typology has been devised based on attributes that it is anticipated will have the greatest influence on H & E impacts: • scheme size: large (> 1000 ha), medium (200-1,000 ha), small (10-200 ha) and micro (< 10 ha) • water source: surface water or groundwater • form of water application: flood/furrow, sprinkler or drip The typology developed differs from that used in the Cost component of the study, but is considered more approapriate for H & E assessment. Nonetheless there are recognized limitations with the typology as it stands at present. Because of these limitations it is proposed to collect information on as wide a range of scheme attributes as possible to enable modification of the classification typology following analyses of the data. Definition of agro-ecological regions/agricultural production systems Climate exerts the most significant control over biophysical processes and hence the nature of agricultural production systems. It is also a significant factor in determining the nature of H & E impacts associated with different types of agricultural water development. Impacts may be magnified or mitigated depending on the geographical location of a scheme and the prevailing climate. Hence, climate provides a basis for attempts to generalise the impact of agricultural water development on health and the environment. The primary basis of the ILRI livestock production system classification is three different agro-ecological zones based on climate (i.e., humid/subhumid, arid/semi-arid and temperate/tropical highland). For this study it is proposed to use these three classes in conjunction with the associated ILRI production systems typology (Thorton et al., 2002). Conceptual Framework The conceptual framework for this component of the study was outlined in the TOR. In brief, it recognises that the well-being of individuals and communities is determined by a wide range of economic, social and environmental factors as well as by heredity and health care. Any change to physical or social environment will have impacts on health. Consequently any agricultural water development will have health impacts (Figure 3.1). Health is improved by poverty reduction, increased food security, distributional equity, community empowerment and improved environmental quality. Negative health impacts are associated with increases in communicable diseases (i.e., vector borne, zoonoses, gastro-intestinal, geohelminths), increase in non-communicable diseases as well as more subtle manifestations (e.g., psychosocial disorders such as alcoholism) linked with social impacts. As far as possible this study will identify both positive and negative impacts as well as the direct and indirect impacts. Quantitative Indicators For comparison and generalisation it is necessary to obtain quantitative information and indicators that show changes from periods before and after the implementation of a scheme and which are verifiably attributable to the scheme. A range of possible indicators has been identified, relating to health and environmental impacts. It is anticipated that this information 31

×