INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT II

Transcription

1 INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT II PERFORMANCE MONITORING PLAN REPORT NO. 6 July 2009 This report is made possible by the support of the American People through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). It was prepared by International Resources Group (IRG). TITLE 1

2

3 INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT II PERFORMANCE MONITORING PLAN REPORT NO. 6 Contract No. EPP-I Task Order No. 06 July 2009 Prepared by: Dr Mark Svendsen Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist International Resources Group 1211 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC Fax DISCLAIMER The author s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ii ACRONYMS iii I. BACKGROUND 1 IWRM II Project... 1 Performance Monitoring Plan... 1 II. OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS 3 Project Objectives... 3 Implementation Indicators... 3 Outcome Indicators... 5 III. DATA SOURCES 9 IV. ANALYSIS AND REPORTING 11 Implementation Indicators Outcome Indicators V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 14 Timetable Training Needs ANNEX 1: SAMPLE DISTRICT PERFORMANCE MONITORING FORM ANNEX 2. SAMPLE SURVEY METHODOLOGY ANNEX 3. BRANCH CANAL WATER DELIVERY RECORD Table of Tables Table 1 IWRM II Objectives and Tasks... 3 Table 2 IWRM II Implementation Indicators, Water Users... 4 Table 3 IWRM II Implementation Indicators, Water Suppliers... 5 Table 4 IWRM II Outcome Indicators... 6 ii PERFORMANCE MONITORING PLAN

5 ACRONYMS AAU BC BCWUA CD CV CY DPR ET GD GIS GOE GPS HVLWCC IAS ID IDS IRG IWMD IWMU IWRM I IWRM II LIFE-IWRM M&E MISD MWRI NGO PET PMP RFP RS RWS TBD TOR USAID Agricultural Administration Unit Branch Canal Branch Canal Water User Association Central Directorate Coefficient of Variation Calendar Year Delivery Performance Ratio Evapotranspiration General Directorate Geographic Information System Government of Egypt Global Positioning System High-Value, Lower Water-Consuming Crops Irrigation Advisory Service Irrigation Department Irrigation and Drainage System International Resources Group (prime contractor for IWRM II) Integrated Water Management District (District) Integrated Water Management Unit (unit of MWRI) LIFE-IWRM Project Integrated Water Resource Management II Project Livelihood and Income from the Environment-IWRM Project Monitoring and Evaluation Matching Irrigation Supply and Demand Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation Non-governmental Organization Potential Evapotranspiration Performance Monitoring Plan Request for Proposal Remote Sensing Relative Water Supply To be Decided Terms of Reference United States Agency for International Development PERFORMANCE MONITORING PLAN iii

6

7 I. BACKGROUND IWRM II PROJECT The Integrated Water Resource Management II Project (IWRM II) builds on the successful IWRM I project completed in It is being implemented by the Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation (MWRI) to increase productivity of water use, water use efficiency, equity of allocation, and water quality. The project is supported by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). International Resources Group (IRG), as prime contractor, and the Integrated Water Management Unit (IWMU), the MWRI counterpart, lead and coordinate the project. The project became effective on 25 January 2009 and completes on 30 September The project comprises eight principal tasks, which are shown in the box at right. IWRM II Project Tasks 1. Formation and development of Branch Canal Water User Associations (BCWUAs) 2. Sustainable local financing for canal and drain maintenance 3. Improvements in water productivity and efficiency 4. Wastewater reuse 5. Regional water management organizations 6. Formation of Integrated Water Management Districts (IWMDs) 7. Establishment of information management systems 8. Capacity building of MWRI personnel PERFORMANCE MONITORING PLAN PURPOSE This Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP) is intended (a) to provide feedback to project managers during project implementation and (b) to provide a comprehensive and coherent information base which can be used to assess its outcomes. It is a deliverable called for in the contract between USAID and IRG and is due 6 months from the effective date of the contract. In addition to these two primary functions, the practices of setting objectives, defining indicators, collecting data, and computing indicators, as required by the PMP, can be readily adapted to serve as an ongoing performance monitoring and benchmarking activity for MWRI. Performance benchmarking is an important management tool which can be used to compare the relative performance of different organizational units, such as the MWRI s Integrated Water Management Districts (IWMDs) and General Directorates (GDs), and improve overall system and organizational performance. This PMP is based on the M&E approach employed under the IWRM I project which preceded the present one. Indicators and data collection activities developed under that project are described in the publication A Performance Monitoring and Evaluation System for Integrated Water Management Districts. 1 PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT Effective M&E begins with the goals and objectives specified for an activity. The remainder of the M&E process then results in judgments about the program s intermediate and final success in achieving those goals and objectives. 1 Svendsen, M. and I. Elassiouty. August IRG Red Sea Sustainable Development and Improved Water Resources Management Component (USAID RSC/WP), Cairo. PERFORMANCE MONITORING PLAN 1

8 A goal is a broad statement of what a program would like to accomplish. It portrays a positive future condition. Objectives are specific, measurable, appropriate, realistic, and time-bound statements describing what the project hopes to accomplish. Objectives say what is to be achieved. They do not say how it is to be achieved. The project implementation plan must do that. Project objectives must both be clearly stated and must have buy-in from key project stakeholders. This means that they must be developed through a consultative process that recognizes that different groups of stakeholders; e.g. farmers and engineers, men and women; are likely to have different interests which need to be brought together in the set of specified objectives. Once goals and objectives are established, indicators are formulated to measure progress and change relative to project objectives. Indicators are objectively measurable gauges of progress toward achieving an objective or measuring the impact of a specific intervention. Indicators are neutral. That is, they do not have value judgments built into them. An indicator of yield therefore is simply the measure of output per unit area. The indicator itself does not imply that a particular value of yield, say 3 tons/feddan for example, is good or bad. An objective can have more than one indicator. However, it is better to have a limited number of indicators that everyone understands than many complex ones. Indicators can be based on both quantitative and qualitative information. Specifying values of indicators to be achieved is the job of targets. The indicators themselves, remember, are neutral. Targets are specific values of indicators that the program wishes to achieve through its actions. In order to measure changes resulting from program implementation, it is necessary to know what conditions existed before implementation began. A baseline provides a starting point from which to measure progress. It establishes the pre-program values of the chosen indicators. Without baseline information, it may be impossible to determine what has changed, when, and by how much. After a baseline is established, the monitoring program will continue to collect data at suitable intervals that can be used to compute the indicators chosen. Indicators used to assess progress and results will necessarily be the same indicators for which baseline values were established. Periodically the monitoring data collected will be processed to create a new set of values for the indicators and the new values compared with previous values and the baseline values so that judgments about program progress and effectiveness can be made. REPORTING The PMP monitoring information will be compiled quarterly and annually and will feed into the quarterly, annual, and final project reports to USAID. The quarterly and annual compilations will also be used internally to help managers guide project implementation. 2 PERFORMANCE MONITORING PLAN

9 II. OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS PROJECT OBJECTIVES The primary objectives of the IWRM II, as given in the Task Order, are the following. 1. Increased productivity of water resources 2. Increased efficiency of water resources 3. More equitable allocation of water resources 4. Improved water quality Table 1 shows the relationship between the 4 project objectives and the 8 project tasks identified in the Task Order. Major contributions to project objectives are shown by solid circles. Secondary contributions are shown by open circles. Note that these are informal judgments by the author and not the result of a formal process. The table simply illustrates the nature of the relationship between the project s objectives and tasks and provides a basis for the M&E plan which follows. Table 1 IWRM II Objectives and Tasks Project Objectives Project Tasks Increased productivity of water resources Increased efficiency of water resources More equitable allocation of water resources 1 Formation and development of BCWUAs 2 Sustainable local financing for canal and drain maintenance 3 Improvements in water productivity and efficiency 4 Wastewater reuse 5 Regional water management organizations 6 Formation of IWMDs 7 Establishment of information management systems 8 Capacity building of MWRI personnel Improved water quality The matrix relationship between project objectives and tasks suggests a two-fold strategy for project monitoring, based on two different types of indicators implementation indicators and outcome indicators as discussed below. IMPLEMENTATION INDICATORS Implementation indicators are used to monitor the execution of project activities. That is, they monitor the inputs supplied by the project to achieve desired change. Because they are related PERFORMANCE MONITORING PLAN 3

10 directly to project inputs, they can be keyed to the 8 project tasks shown in Table 1. Proposed implementation indicators, organized by project task, are shown in Tables 2, and 3. Implementation indicators will have annual targets associated with them so that progress can be assessed as the project unfolds. Target values have been established for the four years of the project for these indicators, together with a set of baseline values that represent pre-project conditions. In general, baseline values of the indicators used in this project will be zero. If necessary, targets will be adjusted as the project progresses. IWRM II M&E Indicators Task Indicator Units a 1.1.b 1.1.c 1.1.d 1.1.e a 1.2.b 1.2.c a Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Formation and Development of Branch Canal Water User Associations (BCWUAs) Number of IWMDs with staffed Water Advisory Teams Number Number of GDs with staffed Water Advisory Teams Number Share of planned BCWUAs established by Ministerial decree Percent Share of BCWUAs with maintenance priorities and action plans Percent Share of BCWUAs monitoring and reporting on Branch Canal water supply Percent Sustainable Local Financing for Canal and Drain Maintenance Decree prepared and submitted for approval 0/ BCWUA cost sharing system guidelines submitted for approval 0/ Cost sharing system guidelines implemented on Branch Canals Number Improvements in Water Productivity and Efficiency Number of farmers receiving training on High-Value Crops and water Number saving technology 1.4 Wastwater Reuse 1.4.a Feasibility plan submitted for approval 1.4.b Number of partnership agreements signed Table 2 IWRM II Implementation Indicators, Water Users Cumulative Targets and Accomplishments Baseline Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 0/ Number PERFORMANCE MONITORING PLAN

11 IWRM II M&E Indicators Task Indicator Units a Regional Water Management Organizations Business plan submitted to MWRI for approval Cumulative Targets and Accomplishments Baseline Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual 0/ b Business plan implemented 0/ Formation and Development of Integrated Water Management Districts (IWMDs) 2.2.a Number of IWMDs established with fully staffed senior positions Number b Number of IWMDs with completed integrated maintenance plans Number c Number of IWMDs with a training room established and equipped Number d Number of General Directorates with a computer training center established and equipped Number e a 2.3.b 2.3.c 2.3.d 2.3.e Table 3 IWRM II Implementation Indicators, Water Suppliers Number of IWRM I IWMDs participating in coordination meetings Number Establishment of information Management Systems for Sustainable Water Resources Management Number of IWMDs with calibrations for all authorized inflow and outflow structures Number Number of IWMDs with MISD installed and operational Number Number of IWMDs with completed and approved water resource Number management plan Number of IWMDs with water resource information systems Number installed and operational Number of Branch Canals with flows monitored by IWMD Number Capacity Building of MWRI Personnel a Candidates selected Number b Candidates accepted by American University Cairo and local universities Number c Candidates graduated with M.S. degrees Number OUTCOME INDICATORS Outcome indicators are used to monitor and assess the results produced by the project inputs. That is, they monitor the combined effects of the activities implemented by the project. They cannot, therefore, be related directly to individual project tasks, but should measure achievement of project objectives. As specified in the Request for Proposals (RFP) and the project work plan 2, and as shown in Table 1, outcome indicators will fall into four categories (1) water productivity, (2) efficiency of water use, (3) equity of water distribution, and (4) water quality. Proposed outcome indicators are shown in Table 4. Some of the outcome indicators can easily be adapted for use in an ongoing performance measurement and benchmarking system. This technique was adopted by some of the Districts in IWRM I and it will be proposed to IWRM II Districts for adoption as well. A sample District performance monitoring form is shown in Annex 1. 2 IRG Annual work plan year 1 (January December 2009). Cairo. PERFORMANCE MONITORING PLAN 5

12 Table 4 IWRM II Outcome Indicators Outcome Indicators Short Name Units Scope Frequency Productivity P1 Value of output per unit water delivered Water Productivity LE / m 3 select branch canals seasonal P2 Value of output per unit area Land Productivity LE / feddan selected branch canals seasonal P3 Complaints Complaints # / 1,000 feddans all project, 45 districts seasonal P4 Farmer satisfaction with irrigation service Farmer Satisfaction % all project, 8 directorates seasonal (years 1 and 4) P5 High value crop area / total area High Value Crop Area Ratio feddan / feddan select branch canals seasonal P6 Value of high value crop output / value of total output High Value Crop Output Ratio LE per feddan / selected branch canals seasonal LE per feddan Efficiency E1 Water delivered / unit area Actual Water Supply m 3 / fedddan all project, 45 districts seasonal E2 Water delivered / target volume Delivery Performance Ratio m 3 / m 3 all project, 45 districts seasonal E3 Water delivered / actual potential evaoptranspiration Relative Water Supply m 3 / m 3 all project, 45 districts seasonal E4 Delivery target volume / actual potential evapotranspiration Target Multiplier m 3 / m 3 all project, 45 districts seasonal Equity Eq1 Coefficient of Variation of delivery/unit area ratio among IWMDs Water Supply Equity (Directorate) dimensionless all project, 45 districts seasonal Eq2 Coefficient of Variation of delivery/target ratio among IWMDs Delivery Equity (Directorate) dimensionless all project, 45 districts seasonal Eq3 Satisfied farmers in MC heads/satisfied farmers in MC tails Main Canal Satisfaction Ratio # / # all project, 8 directorates seasonal (years 1 and 4) Eq4 Satisfied farmers in BC heads/satisfied farmers in BC tails Branch Canal Satisfaction Ratio # / # all project, 8 directorates seasonal (years 1 and 4) 6 PERFORMANCE MONITORING PLAN

13 PRODUCTIVITY The key indicator of productivity is the value of output per unit water delivered. This is the measure that the project intends to improve. It must be used with some caution, however, because water is only one of the many factors that affect value of output. Moreover, since water is not priced in Egypt, farmers don t make decisions on the basis of water productivity but rather on the basis of resources that are expensive or strictly limiting. Hence a useful supplemental indicator is the value of output per unit area the traditional measure of yield, where land is regarded as the scarce resource. Number of complaints received by the IWMD was shown during IWRM I to be un-correlated with farmer satisfaction with irrigation service and hence of limited usefulness in assessing quality of service or productivity. However, because its use in ingrained in MWRI practice, extending down from British times, it has been included here. Farmer satisfaction with irrigation service is the indicator most directly related to farmers judgments about the quality of irrigation service. Although not explicitly tied to water productivity, it is an important independent indicator of quality of irrigation service provision, the primary mechanism by which the project intends to influence water productivity. Increasing the area planted to high-value, lower water-consuming crops (HVLWCC), i.e. horticultural crops including orchards and spices, and introducing technologies to save water are other important project strategies for increasing water productivity. Although it is not feasible to attempt to change cropping patterns across the entire two million feddan service area covered by the project, selected areas will be targeted for such changes and the area and value of output monitored. EFFICIENCY Efficiency of water delivery and use is closely related to water productivity. In this case, indicators will aim at measuring the amount of water delivered to individual Districts relative to several different standards. These standards include the area served, the target volume for the District established in collaboration with the Water Distribution Center (WDC), and the potential evapotranspiration (PET) of the crop mix planted (see box at right). In addition, the target volume for each District will be compared with its ex post PET value to provide an indication of the physical and managerial losses that are programmed into the target figures for the Districts. This yields a set of explicit multipliers that reflect the magnitude of the allowance over and above PET that the Directorate and the WDC have allocated to cover operational losses in particular Districts. Potential Evapotranspiration (PET) PET represents the environmental demand for water from an adequately watered crop. It is usually defined for a short green crop that completely covers the ground, such as turf, and adjusted slightly for the particular crop in question, e.g. maize, rice, sugarcane, cotton. Actual ET may be less than potential ET if the crop is not well supplied with water and hence cannot use water at the maximum rate. In this case yields will generally be suppressed as well. EQUITY Equity of water distribution is also related to water productivity. This is because more even distribution of water within a branch or main canal command area will tend to raise yields in water poor areas while having little impact on yields in water excess areas. The net effect will be to increase the average yield of the unit. PERFORMANCE MONITORING PLAN 7

14 Two types of indicators are used to measure equity of water distribution. One is a statistical measure, the coefficient of variation (CV). The CV is a measure of dispersion of a set of values around an average and so the smaller it is, the less variability there is in the set of values, i.e. the greater the equity. The CV will be computed for both the variability of the Actual Water Supply among Districts, and the variability of the Delivery Performance Ratio among the Districts. The second pair of indicators for equity is based on client satisfaction surveys. The underlying idea is that the more similar the percentage of satisfied farmers in the tail ends of canals is to the percentage in the head reaches, the more equitable is the distribution. This ratio will be computed for aggregations of both main canals and branch canals across the project. This was an indicator used during IWRM I on an intensive basis to measure quality of irrigation service at the District level. Under IWM II, assessments will be made at the Directorate, Governorate, and project level in the initial and final years of the project only. WATER QUALITY Water quality occupies a somewhat different place in the project goal set. Although nominally a project objective, there are no mechanisms included under the project to achieve a widespread change in water quality. Indeed, water quality improvements lie largely outside the purview of the MWRI itself, being primarily dependent on municipal and industrial waste water discharges into the Nile and into irrigation canals, agricultural chemical use, and solid waste dumping into canals by the millions of residents in the thousands of towns and villages across the country. Hence, while we will obtain and report results of the ongoing water quality monitoring program of the MWRI, we do not expect the project to have an appreciable impact on levels of the various water quality parameters. In particular locations, pilot activities to use wastewater streams to grow trees and other non-food crops will be supported by the project, and intensive water quality measurement will be an integral part of these efforts. 8 PERFORMANCE MONITORING PLAN

15 III. DATA SOURCES Data for the M&E activity will come from four principal sources. Implementation indicators are simply indications of whether or not individual IWMDs and Directorates have completed particular steps in the implementation process. Information on when these steps are taken will be recorded by the Task Team Leaders and reported to the M&E Team Leader. Data for the outcome indicators will come from three additional sources. The first is the data collection and management system which will be set up in each of the 45 IWMDs under Task 2.3, Establishment of Information Management Systems for Sustainable Water Resources Management, of the project. The databases established under this system will include information on water deliveries to the IWMDs, cropping pattern data reported to the IWMD by the local Agricultural Administration Unit (AAU), and complaints filed with the IWMD by farmers. It will also include daily inflow data for the BCs which will be used in productivity assessments. This data will be compiled by the MWRI Directorates and reported regularly to the MWRI Irrigation Sector, the IWMU, and the consultant team in Cairo and used to compute project M&E indicators. A number of steps are necessary before this data begins to flow, and so there will be delays in our having access to it for M&E purposes. These steps include specifying District boundaries, designating authorized measuring points for all significant inflows and outflows for each District, developing rating curves for each measuring point, and computing water volumes from stage readings being collected as an ongoing function of the pre-existing Irrigation Districts. Likewise, linkage with local AAUs and harmonization of Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reform and MWRI boundaries is required before crop area data begins to flow to the IWMDs. Fortunately needed data on flows and on cropping patterns can be computed retroactively, and so while there will be lags in reporting M&E information based on these data, a complete set of data should ultimately be available for all four years of the project. It was learned during IWRM I that reported service areas of IWMDs are often badly out of date, and so once boundaries of the new integrated Districts are defined, an early project activity will be to determine the current cultivable area of each District using a standard set of steps, together with Global Positioning System (GPS) and remote sensing (RS) techniques. These area values will then be used to compute that indicator which is to be reported on a unit area basis. A second source of outcome data is a sample survey planned for years one and four of the project. The survey was designed by Cairo-based project personnel and the survey consultant. The methodology being employed is shown in Annex 2. The survey will be administered to 44 farmers in each District or a total of around 2,000 farmers. Its planned level of precision at the District level is 15%, at the Directorate level, 5.4% and at the all project level 2.2%. It will focus on assessing farmer perceptions of the quality of their irrigation and drainage services, reported crop yields, and knowledge of water user organizations. The survey employs a stratified design with two Branch Canals (BCs) selected from each District one from the head reaches of the irrigation system and a second BC at the tail end of the system. Eleven farmers are to be selected from the head of each of these BCs and another 11 from the tail. The first round of the survey will establish a baseline in each Directorate, while the final round will measure changes at the conclusion of the project. Because of reduced sampling density in the present project, it will not be possible to characterize individual Districts using this data, as the sampling error for such a small sample will be large. Data will be used at the Directorate and all-project levels. PERFORMANCE MONITORING PLAN 9

16 A third source of information will be supplemental agricultural data obtained from AAUs by project consultants. Data on crop yields obtained through the AAU will be the primary source of data for assessing changes in yield and water productivity. However, because the accuracy and precision of this data is unknown, it will first be verified by crop cut sampling in selected areas conducted by project agronomic consultants. Agronomic consultants will also obtain farm gate price information for each directorate at the end of each season. Remote sensing will be used to cross check the crop area figures obtained from the AAUs to feed the Matching Irrigation Supply and Demand (MISD) system, which is a part of the planned District-level data system. Remote sensing work will focus particularly on those areas targeted for conversion to high value crops. This approach will use high resolution satellite images to assess changes in cropping patterns between the beginning and the end of the project and to determine the area converted from field crops in general, and rice in particular, to horticultural crops. Cropped area information, coupled with AAU information on yields of particular crops and crop prices, will be used to generate the water and land productivity indicators and the two high-value, lower waterconsuming crop indicators. Once BCWUAs are established and begin to function, they will be asked to record the timing of water deliveries to their branch canals and report their level of satisfaction with the irrigation service provided to them. A draft form for assessing delivery patterns and performance is shown in Annex 3. However, because the BCWUAs will not be functional during the initial year of the project, it will not be possible to establish a pre-project baseline using this approach, and hence the information will not be useful for assessing project outcomes. However, the introduction of this monitoring approach as soon as practicable can lead its use in future MWRI performance assessment programs. 10 PERFORMANCE MONITORING PLAN

17 IV. ANALYSIS AND REPORTING IMPLEMENTATION INDICATORS Creation of the implementation indicators (1.1.a through 2.4.c) is simple and straightforward. Most are simply numbers of occurrences (e.g. number of IWMDs with training centers established an equipped) which are summed across Districts and reported against targets. Gender effects will be disaggregated wherever possible and appropriate. OUTCOME INDICATORS Most of the outcome indicators require some data-based computation to create. These are discussed individually below. PRODUCTIVITY Value of crop output for one targeted Branch Canal in each Directorate will be computed from area, yield, and price data for all important crops grown on the BC to create a Water Productivity indicator. Water delivered to the BC will be computed from measured daily BC inflows, net of any intended outflows, and summed for the season. Gross value of output divided by the volume of water delivered to the BC will provide the primary water productivity measure for these targeted areas. In addition, each BC targeted for HVLWC crops will be paired with another BC in the same District which is not targeted for change. The same variables will be measured for these paired BCs and results from the two compared. Water Productivity is expected to rise over the course of the project. Gross value of output will also be put on a per unit area basis by dividing its value for the selected BCs by the BC net irrigable area to obtain values of Land Productivity. The paired non-targeted BCs will be measured in the same way and the two compared. The number of complaints filed with each IWMD will be extracted from IWMD databases, divided by the net irrigable area of the District, and multiplied by 1,000 to obtain a Complaints indicator the number of complaints per 1,000 feddans for each District. This value is not expected to be a reliable predictor of quality of irrigation service among Districts. However, it is expected to indicate the effectiveness of BCWUAs in helping to solve user problems before they become formal complaints. This value is expected to fall over the course of the project. The percentage of farmers in each Directorate satisfied with irrigation service comprises the Farmer Satisfaction indicator. It will be computed from sample survey data and reported. This value is expected to rise by the end of the project. The area devoted to high-value, lower water-consuming crops in the one targeted branch canal in each Directorate will be divided by the total cropped area for the branch canal to obtain the fraction of the branch canal devoted to high value crops the High Value Crop Area Ratio. The same process will be followed for the value of high value crops relative to the total value of output in the select branch canals to produce the High Value Crop Output Ratio. PERFORMANCE MONITORING PLAN 11

18 EFFICIENCY Water delivered to each District will be computed from measured canal inflows, net of outflows, and summed for the season. This value will be divided by the District s net irrigable area to obtain the Actual Water Supply (AWS) indicator. This value can be compared with the project-wide average to identify Districts with particularly high or low levels of water application. Baseline and subsequent values can also be compared to determine if Actual Water Supply is declining. Declines are expected, but this indicator is less reliable than the following one which also includes information on the specific water needs in each District. Volumes of water delivered will be divided by the target volumes set for each District by the WDC to obtain a Delivery Performance Ratio (DPR) for each District. Target volumes are established in advance of the season based on the previous year s cropping pattern and on expected losses during delivery. This is an important planning and management tool. Values of this indicator can also be computed on a 15-daily basis throughout the season so that managers can make adjustments on a real-time basis. Target volumes are based on physical crop needs, but also include allowances for unavoidable losses, such as canal seepage en route to farmers fields. Ideally, the value of this indicator for the season and for each 15-day period should be 1.0, implying a perfect match between the intended delivery and the actual delivery. These ratios are expected to move closer to 1.0 as the project progresses. At the conclusion of the season, when the actual crop areas for the season are known, a Relative Water Supply (RWS) can be computed. This indicator provides an after-the-season look at the amount of water provided, relative to computed crop needs, assuming that crops were never water stressed 3. The final indicator in this set is the Target Multiplier. This indicator shows the ratio between the delivery target set for the District and the computed water need of the crops grown. This ratio will usually be greater than one, since some unavoidable losses are generally incurred in the delivery process and so the target will generally exceed the computed crop water needs. The level of these losses varies from District to District, but higher than average values are a signal that expected losses are large and that the system may benefit from a physical upgrade, such as gate repair or canal lining; improved maintenance; or improved management. At times, though, this ratio may be less than one, as might be the case if farmers use (unmeasured) pumped drainage water extensively to supplement canal supplies, in which case surface water deliveries may be less than computed crop needs. The Target Multiplier is expected to decline over the course of the project as sources of loss and inefficiency are identified and mitigated. EQUITY The coefficient of variation (CV) is a statistic that measures dispersion around an average value. As such, where values of the statistic being assessed are expected to be similar, a smaller CV indicates greater equity. The CV of two measures of efficiency AWS and the DPR will be computed to see how much variability is present in each of these indicators among Districts. These equity measures are termed Water Supply Equity (Directorate) and Delivery Equity (Directorate) The value of each is expected to decline over the life of the project, indicating that managers at Directorate and District levels are doing a better job of dividing available water equitably among the 45 Districts. Delivery Equity (Directorate) is particularly important in this regard. 3 That is, it is based on the potential crop evaoptranspiration, which only occurs when crops are fully supplied with water. Actual evapotranspiration may be less than the potential if crops did experience water stress during the season, since if they do not have the water, they cannot use, or transpire, it. In this case, yields will also be suppressed. 12 PERFORMANCE MONITORING PLAN

19 Percentages of satisfied farmers from the sample survey data for each season in Years 1 and 4 will be computed separately for farmers in the head end Branch Canals and those in the tail end of the District. The ratio of these two satisfaction levels, the Main Canal Satisfaction Ratio, will indicate how equitable the distribution of water among Branch Canals is, as rated by water users. If they are equally satisfied, as they should be in an ideal world, then the ratio would be 1.0. If the head-end farmers are more satisfied, as is typically the case, then the ratio will be greater than unity. This value is expected to move closer to 1.0 by the end of the project. This ratio measures the effectiveness of the Directorate and District managers as a group, but cannot separate the performance of individual Districts. Computing a similar ratio for the water users in the heads and tails of the Branch Canals yields a Branch Canal Satisfaction Ratio. This ratio should also be 1.0 and reflects the success of the District personnel and farmers who are managing and maintaining the BC in distributing water evenly along its length. This indicator will be computed for groups of irrigators at the Directorate and all-project level, but cannot be reliably computed for individual Districts. PERFORMANCE MONITORING PLAN 13

20 V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION Implementation of the M&E plan is closely integrated into the implementation of the project itself. The M&E Team Leader will provide overall coordination and leadership for the activity, supported by one or two visits annually by the Senior M&E Specialist. Task Team Leaders will be responsible for keeping records to document implementation and for data retrieval from the IWMD databases. TIMETABLE An initial timetable of M&E activities is shown below. This timetable will be updated in subsequent annual M&E reports. 1. M&E Plan completed in July Calibration of IWMD inflow and outflow structures proceeds over the next 8 to 16 months to allow volumetric flow calculations to be made for both baseline and subsequent seasons. 3. Calibration of inflow structures to at least two Branch Canals in each District over the next 8 to 16 months to allow volumetric flow calculations to be made for both baseline and subsequent seasons. 4. The first (baseline) sample survey round to take place during the second quarter of CY Database and data collection system development and strengthening at the IWMD level proceeds over the first 3 years of the project. Districts begin reporting monitoring data as soon as they have completed one full season of data collection, expected during Project Year Record keeping by the Branch Canal Water User Associations is implemented as they are established. with the first ones accomplishing this in Project Year Reporting on implementation indicators by Task Team Leaders begins in the third quarter of Project Year 1 for all IWMDs and continues throughout the project. 8. M&E Specialist works with M&E team members in October 2009 to prepare first annual M&E report. 9. In subsequent years, M&E data flow to a central point in the IWMU through the data systems established under the project. 10. A follow-up farmer satisfaction field survey to be carried out during Project Year M&E Specialist works with M&E team annually in October to prepare annual report submissions and on other occasions as needed. TRAINING NEEDS Training for the sample survey enumeration will be carried out by the contractor implementing the surveys. The extensive training to be provided by the project under Task 2.3 Establishment of Information Management Systems for Sustainable Water Resources Management will create almost all of the skills needed to collect the remaining data required by the M&E activity. Training in M&E techniques may be provided to MWRI staff as required and on request. 14 PERFORMANCE MONITORING PLAN

21 ANNEX 1: SAMPLE DISTRICT PERFORMANCE MONITORING FORM District Performance Profile (Monthly) Month: Mar Directorate: West Qena Water Rotation Schedule District Water M m3/month Delivery Water Complaints Availability Farmers Delivery Demand vs delivery Complaints Violations Water satisfaction (max Area (fed) Demand Target Delivery vs Target vs Target Demand (m3/da/fd) irrig. drain. total last Year Violations last year Head Tail Reliability = 3, min =0) Esna Arment Nakada Naga Ham Abo Tisht GDA Note: a - Rotation Schedule & Farmers satisfaction data to be determined from Form No. 8. b - Farmer Satisfaction; 3 Excellent, 2 Good, 1 Fair, 0 Bad PERFORMANCE MONITORING PLAN 15

22 ANNEX 2. SAMPLE SURVEY METHODOLOGY Farmer-based Performance Monitoring of Irrigation Service Delivery 1. Background The GOE is implementing an aggressive irrigated area expansion program. This is in turn reducing the supply of water per feddan. In addition, the high cost of operating and maintaining the water delivery infrastructure is a serious constraint on the national budget because farmers pay a very low portion of the actual costs. This further compounded by decreasing water quality as the water conveyance system is increasingly used for waste disposal. The objective of IWRM II is to provide technical assistance, training, commodities, and small grants in support of the decentralization of water management decision-making and an increased participation of all rural inhabitants in such decision-making in East Delta Region. Forty-Five Districts have already been restructured into IWMDs in the eight directorates. With decentralization and participation, it is expected to achieve improvements in the quality of irrigation services provided to farmers. 2. Monitoring System An important component of the project is the monitoring and evaluation of the IWMDs in order to provide the project stakeholders with the information needed to follow and manage the project s progress and assess its outcomes and impacts. An M&E Plan has been developed for the project which includes a number of indicators of objective achievement. Some of these indicators require data on farmer perceptions related to irrigation service, and the following survey design and methodology is intended to facilitate obtaining these data. 2-1 Methodology and Survey Design Some data for M&E program will be drawn from the data systems of the IWMDs. Other data will be collected from farmers served by the IWMDs through a field survey. The survey will collect needed information from farmers to determine the equity of water distribution. This data will be based on farmer satisfaction with the irrigation service provided analyzed in terms of the spatial distribution of the responses. This task includes several activities. Sample Design to represent the head and tail reaches of the main canal within each District as well as branch canals within each District. Questionnaire development. Questionnaire pre-testing. Following is a detailed description of each of the mentioned activities PERFORMANCE MONITORING PLAN 16

23 2-2 Sample Design and Selection Respondents. The respondents for the survey will be farmers who are responsible for decision making regarding water management, agriculture land use, and crop selection. Some of these farmers may be landowners, while others may work on land owned by someone else. The farmer may be male or female. Sample Size. Since the main objective is to have indicators at the District level, the overall target sample of farmers will be a minimum of 40 and a maximum of around 60 per District based on the area of the District. The sample size is determined by two factors mainly: 1- The resources available (human and financial resources) 2- The requirement for data analysis. Data available from the IWRM II include the District name, area, and number of branch canals. The District area varies from 20,000 feddan to 83,400 feddan, and the number of branch canals varies from a minimum of 1 branch canals per District to a maximum of around 59 canals. (The target sample from each District is shown below). The proposed sample will be around 1980 farmers from all 45 Districts. PERFORMANCE MONITORING PLAN 17

24 East Delta Governorates, Directorates and districts Governorate Directorate District Target Number Sample of Farmers Number of Sample of BC Average No. of Selected Farmers on BC Damietta Damietta Faraskour Total Portsaid Damietta Elkantra Gharb Elsalam Elmataria San Elhagar Total Total Kebli Aga Bahri Aga Meet Sowaid East Dakahlia Kebli Elmansoura Bahri Elmansoura Dekerness Shark Elmanzala Dakahlia Gharb Elmanzala Total Meet Ghamr Deyarb Negm South Dakahlia Kebli Elsenbllawain Bahri Elsenbllawain Temaie Elemdeed Total Total Eltal Elkebeer Elismailia Shamal Elismailia Ismailia Ismailia Elsuez Shark Elbohirat Elsheekh Zayed Total Shark Belbeis Elmollak Faquos Salhia Abo Hammad Eltolombaat Ganoob Elsalhia Shamal Elsalhia Sharkia Total Menya Elkamh Hehia East Sharkia Shark Faquos Gharb Faquos Elhosaynia Total Total Shoubra Qalyoub Toukh Benha Qualubia Qualubia Kafr Shoukr Mashtool Elsouk Gharb Belbeis Shebeen Elkanater Total Grand Total PERFORMANCE MONITORING PLAN 18

25 A list of all the branch canals in each District will be obtained and divided into three equal groups based on water availability (excellent, moderate, and poor) by District managers and their staff. The sample will then be selected in two stages. First Stage. A number of branch canals will be selected from each District, stratified by water availability in the branch canal. Two branch canals will be selected randomly from Districts; one from each of the three groups of canals. Second Stage. The IAS will prepare a list of landowners on each sample branch canal and provide this to the survey consultant who will select the sample. The number of farmers in each sub-sample will be determined in proportion to number of farmers on the branch canals using the following formula: No. of farmers to be selected on Branch canal =T N N 1 Where: T: Total Target sample of farmers per District N 1 : Number of farmers on the selected Branch Canals N: Total number of farmers on selected Branch Canals in the District Then the target number of farmers will be selected using random systematic sampling. The number of farmers will be selected representing the position of their along the branch canal randomly (the head and tail). During the field phase of the survey, landowners who are not actual farmers will be replaced with the actual farmer of the land. 2-3 Questionnaire Development and Pretest One questionnaire has been developed for this survey. The questionnaire has been revised by the M&E consultant as well as technical staff at the IWRM II and other stakeholders. The farmer questionnaire includes information on: Irrigation services including farmer satisfaction with the quantity and time availability of water, crops cultivated and its productivity and equity between farmers. Knowledge of Water Users Association among farmers and communication with District officials Background information about farmers work and income other than agriculture. The questionnaire was developed in both English and Arabic. After revision it was finalized in English and then translated into Arabic. A brief manual for enumerators was developed for the training, including general guidelines for conducting an interview and specific instructions for asking each question. A small pretest will be conducted with the draft questionnaire on one of BC in Lower Egypt. Two experienced interviewers from the vendor will be trained for one day and will interview a total of 50 PERFORMANCE MONITORING PLAN 19

26 farmers. Each will be within one of the four initial IWMDs formed during a previous project. Based on experience gained in the pretest, the questionnaire will be finalized for the main data collection. 3. Design Training Program and Data collection 3-1 Enumerators Selecting and training enumerators is one of the most important activities that will take place during the conduct of the survey to guarantee good data quality. After discussion and negotiation with MWRI and the M&E team, the following approach was agreed upon. The Water Communication Unit, MWRI will bring his own enumerators and supervisors. The training will be organized as follows: i. Sessions will be given about objectives, survey design and methodology, and questioning techniques, preparing enumerators to gather questionnaire information (one day). ii. Trainees will apply their training by conducting trial interviews, under the supervision of the trainers (One day). A tentative schedule is shown below. Date First Day Second Day Time 9:00-10:00 10:00-11:00 11:00-12:30 12:30-13:00 13:00-15:00 9:00-12:00 13:30-15:00 Subject Introduction- Survey objectives, Survey Design and Methodology, sample, field work organization, quality control How to fill different types of questions How to fill out the questionnaire using visual aids Lunch Break Mock Interview Field practice (pre test) Discussion of Field practice The training sessions will start within two weeks. 3-2 Data collection Enumerators and supervisors in each District will work as one team and the supervisor will organize the team work to conduct the data collection. In addition, the supervisor will be responsible for collecting and reviewing the questionnaires for completeness and consistency, and will make spot checks to be sure that the correct sample was selected. Data collection will start in May and will refer to the period 1 May 2008 through 30 April The numbers of field coordinators (Contractor s employees) should be two in each directorate. These coordinators should be assigned principal responsibility for correct sample selection, and questionnaire completeness, accuracy, and consistency. PERFORMANCE MONITORING PLAN 20