External evaluation of the first program report phase April 27, 2018 Josué León Sayra Taleno Andrew Blackwell Content Executive Summary i 1. Introduction, Objectives and Evaluation Methodology 1 2. Context evolution 1 2.1 Remarkable aspects of the biophysical and socioeconomic context 1 2.2 Political and institutional context for water management 2 3. Analysis of the Expected Results with the Program 3 4. Relevance and Effectiveness of the Program 4 4.1 Water management and community management of watersheds 4 4.2 Farming practices 4 4.3 Local financing 6 4.4 Social inclusion 6 4.5 Relevant local organizations 8 4.6 Water governance and management 9 5. Basin Management development 13 5.1 Basin organizations competence 13 5.2 Relationship with local governments 14 5.3 Management and program management 15 5.4 Sustainability 17 5.5 Immediate priorities 18 6. Lessons Learned in Phase I 19 6.1 Context Key elements 19 6.2 Program experience Key elements 19 6.3 Potentially key bases to build 20 6.4 Lessons to optimize efforts impact 20 7. Main conclusions and recommendations for a second phase 20 7.1 Program goals 20 7.2 Programmatic organization 22 7.3 Management organization 23 Annex 1. Participants in meetings and conversations with the evaluation team 24 Annex 2. Scheme that groups the objectives, key issues, transversal axes, 28 and guiding questions, raised in the Evaluation Terms of Reference. Annex 3. Assessment grid for projects evaluation / SDC programs 30 Annex 4. Summary of progress and difficulties related to the Logical Framework indicators 32 Annex 5. Examples of agricultural practices 34 Executive Summary Between February 19 and March 12, 2018, the evaluation team visited producer families in the three zones of the Basin and met with key stakeholders in the basin organizations, national and local governments, and local organizations. We tried to follow the principles of a "beneficiary assessment", letting the conversations be guided by the interests and perspectives of the participants. This report presents what we found in meetings and field visits, sometimes confirming what is stated in the program and in some areas suggesting changes in the focus and priorities of the implementation work. The availability or absence of reliable sources of water is a factor that determines notable differences in the biophysical context and also in the economic and psychosocial context of the communities in the Basin. The important role that rural banks play in productive and economic dynamics is also remarkable. The Program has gained credibility in the communities with attentive technical support to productive families, and technical, organizational and financial support to water boards and rural banks. It has also succeeded in organizing and / or strengthening 13 micro-watershed councils with the participation of water boards, rural banks and other local organizations. In recent months, it has made progress in coordinating its contributions at a family, community and micro-watershed levels in three zones of the Basin, but a more complete articulation is needed to ensure that support for changes in productive practices to be consistent with the biophysical needs and micro-watershed action plans. The program participates in a dialogue with the Lenca Table that is laying the foundations for a more effective inclusion of the interests and worldview of the indigenous people, especially in the upper zone where there is an important effort to rescue Lena values at the community level. There are also ongoing initiatives by women's groups and young people in various communities that provide a basis for developing the incipient inclusion of gender, psychosocial, and social and ethnic inclusion in the program's action strategies. From the consolidation of the micro-watershed councils, the participation of the Apasapo River Sub-basin Council, and the creation of the Goascoarán River Basin Council commissions in the three zones of the Basin, the Program has begun and must prioritize work approach in the relationship between basin organizations, municipal governments and, especially, the associations. To address the critical problem of water availability and quality in the Basin, an inter- community, inter-institutional, inter-municipal, and inter-donor coordination will be necessary. As a result, some of the key lessons learned in Phase I are: • the progress of community management is conditioned by the particular biophysical and socioeconomic conditions of each micro-watershed. • the most common agricultural practices increase vulnerability and lack of water makes it difficult to introduce new practices; • "Benefits" and remittances that do not change practices subsidize increasing vulnerability. • the focus on water is motivating and generates sustained organizational efforts. • the strengthening of rural savings banks psychosocially empowers local leaders. • developing the ability to manage money and change the environment transcends the value of the particular "benefit" of a loan or project. • with basin awareness, local leaders extend their vision of community development to an inter-communal and inter-municipal vision that incorporates a water focus. • the relationship with the Lenca community can be strengthened by supporting the recovery of ancestral practices in technical assistance. i • the associations can open the door to the alignment of donors contributions and to a harmonized regulation. • the donations of the cooperation, the credits provided by rural banks and the private capital of the remittances, coordinated, could finance major investments that break the vicious circle of lack of water, "traditional" production and increased vulnerability. Suggestions of priorities for the general operative work and in each zone in the year 2018, are: Explore a unique strategy of support to the national government with the Project of Water Governance. Generate comprehensive reports by area (linked with council plans where General possible) instead of separate reports by consortium member. As a sustainability strategy, prioritize support for agro-businesses and explore ways to increase the potential of financial contributions from the same communities. Improve relations with municipalities. Zona Develop a relationship with MAMLESIP Alta Increase strategic coordination with donors, especially USAID. Seek for a more effective support for micro-watershed councils, similar to what Zona Fundación Vida offers in the lower zone and ASOMAINCUPACO in the upper zone. Media Take advantage of the opportunity for close coordination with MAMSURPAZ and its advisory board Renew participation of Fundación Vida Zona Support coordination between municipalities (Alianza, Goascorán, Caridad, Aramecina) Baja and associations (MAFRON, MAMSURPAZ) Explore ways to approach the coastal zone with the Water Governance Project For the second phase, it is recommended: • for the design of the program, that SDC involves the pertinent actors in the process of defining the goals of three lines of action: o community work to address adaptation to climate change and the development of local economic sustainability; o inter-institutional work to address global water management in the Basin of Goascoran River; and o monitoring and communication of biophysical and socioeconomic effects in the Basin. • a tender for an operating agent (in which members of the current mandatory consortium and / or its sub-contractors may participate) which includes, as a requirement, a commitment to negotiate the way to move from a contract with SDC to a set of posts located in a secretariat of the Basin Council and / or units in the relevant Associations until late 2021, with the understanding that the posts will be financed by SDC within a third phase of the program. • a Directive Committee composed of SDC, the Basin Council, the managers of the ICUs UTI of the Associations and MiAmbiente; an operational-technical committee with the president's director, the coordinators of the operational sub-teams of the three zones, and the SDC program officer; and a national basin policy advisory committee that includes, among others, the General Direction for Water Resources (DGRH) and the NCG representatives and the Water Governance Project. ii 1. Introduction, Objectives and the Evaluation Methodology Between February 19 and March 12, 2018, the evaluation team met with five micro-basin councils, a sub-basin council and the Basin council; We spoke with leaders of rural savings banks, water management boards, and other local organizations in each area; We interviewed four mayors, a vice-mayor, several staff members of the municipal corporations, and the technical teams of three Associations; they showed us and explained how six community works financed by the Program were built; we talked with three focus groups; met with leaders of three NGOs working in the basin; and had nine long visits on farms, to learn about the living conditions and perspectives of families that have taken full advantage of the technical assistance offered by the Project, others partially benefited, and others that do not participate in the Program. (Annex 1 is a list of people and groups that gave us their perspectives on the problematic in the basin and the contribution of the Program.) As far as possible in a short evaluation, we follow the principles of a "beneficiary assessment", letting the conversations be guided by the interests and perspectives of the participants, especially in visits to producing families and focus