1. Balancing Hardware with Software for Sustainable AWM IFAD HQs 18thApril 2011 Luca Di Mario Water and Institutions Desks Policy and Technical Advisory Division

2. objectives Introduce the H:S issue; Show where the problem is (our perspective); Share results of a preliminary analysis we conducted at IFAD (limitations + next steps).

3. we invest in hardware because “… infrastructure is pivotal element for AWM, and consequently for economic growth and poverty reduction.” >Infrastructure and poverty reduction – what is the connection? (ADB, 2003)

4. … and in software because “Sustainability of water infrastructure depends largely on people’s motivation and organizational capacity to provide the necessary operation and maintenance.” >Transforming rural institutions in order to reach MDGs (IFAD,2003)

5. since project resources are limited… HARDWARE SOFTWARE >who does not agree?

6. Problems arise … where governments and other investors prefer high-visibility, quick-impact and fast-cost recovery it is difficult to advocate for ‘software’ because less visible and straightforward (most of our decisions are taken by looking at economics) heavy investments go in ‘hardware’ development

7. bad/inefficient >not clever I would say! $$$$$$

8. “water: is largely a crisis of governance…” >WWDR(UNESCO, 2006) “So far the focus has been on the HARDWARE side with only little attention to the software side of irrigation management.” >Pro-poor Intervention Strategies in Irrigated Agriculture in Asia (IWMI, 2005) “The ‘software’ side of infrastructureprovision has too often been ignored, leading to a great waste of resources and a lack of results.” >Transforming rural institutions in order to reach MDGs (IFAD, 2003)

9. The way forward? “Making irrigated agricultural investment packages for hardware and software development more comprehensive by integrating investments in infrastructure, management and service delivery in agriculture.” >Pro-poor Intervention Strategies in Irrigated Agriculture in Asia (IWMI, 2005)

10. beyond broad statements … Is there any guideline* or study to support stakeholders in DM for a well-balanced H:S? * context specific/no blueprint/no silver bullet

11. How do we ensure this?

12. Can we think to something like this? 2 1

13. Is it clear? WHAT HOW MUCH WHEN … should we invest/develop in H and S for sustainable AWM?

14. The importance of how and when… “Many of today’s water bureaucracies were set up to construct major water infrastructure facilities. This heavy focus on infrastructure sometimes led to institutions and practices that were well suited for construction, but less well suited for the adaptive management needed to operate long-lived, multipurpose.” >Water for food, water for life – Comprehensive assessment (IWMI, 2007)

15. we looked at literature IFAD WB IWMI FAO ADB IFPRI issue is recognised but only two studies show empirical evidence on the matter

16. beyond broad statements … We did not find much!

17. IWMI cost and performance SSA vs. other regions EIRR >10% = success EIRR < 10% = failure Project success is achieved by a software share above 22%-18%, in non-SSA Software share has positive impact on probability of success; the higher share of software components in the total investment reduces the unit hardware cost of irrigation projects.

18. Can we learn something on H:S from IFAD’s experience? >that’s one of the reasons I have been hired for…

19. What is an ideal project for the analysis?

20. project selection

21. projects sample 116projects reporting some water component/indicator 70closed or at closure before end 2011 50have reported irrigation or soil water conservation amongst main components/subcomponents 16 projects preselected 32projects irrigation/soil conservation (closed or at closure before end 2011) 5 APR 4 ESA 3 NEN (2) WCA (2) LAC 11 APR 8 ESA 7 NEN 4 WCA 3 LAC >project approved after 2000 - (source PPMS (subcomponent type), RIMS (1st level)

22. what was considered as hard and as soft? HARD Civil work Equipment Labour for construction SOFT Capacity Building WUAs support Salaries Buildings/Vehicles Training O&M Investments in Project Management have been reported but not considered as soft investment – very difficult to discern their water component

23. common features for the IRRIGATION investments 8%-26% of TOT IRR budget is invested in SOFTWARE for successful projects (EIRR above 12% + PSR scores >4); The S investments stabilize around 10% for projects of soil/water conservation; Generally speaking – beneficiaries participation and contribution (cash/labour >10%) is essential to contribute to project sustainability; O&M budget is present in all project to assist first stages;

24. common features in TOTAL budgets (not only irrigation) for the projects analysed every dollar spent in ‘hardware’ 0.80 (average) was spent in ‘software’

25. need for future need for field confirmation (before saying this study is valid) = RESULTs very TENTATIVE! An agreed definition of H and S; Context specific/institutional analysis; Link it with WUAs parallel WUAs PIM/IMT assessment study (on going in APR) Establishing a collaborative partnership for consultation and peer review;

26. Problems during the analysis PPMS is not really precise in defining project components, needed to check with Defining what is hard and what is soft when reading projects documentation; Budgets sometimes too general Lack of further documents

27. limitations Analysis still preliminary; Details gathered from Appraisal Reports Desk only/report only data; No field verification; Focus a lot on HOW MUCH, less on WHAT. Nothing on WHEN; Need peer review; Just IRRIGATION – water is wider

28. need for future need for field confirmation (before saying this study is valid) Analyse also FAILURES!; An agreed definition of H and S; Context specific/institutional analysis; Link it with WUAs parallel WUAs PIM/IMT assessment study (on going in APR) > establish a collaborative partnership for consultation and peer review!

29. basically this is just the beginning…

30. Thank you! l.dimario@ifad.org