I GCP/IND/176/NET Andhra Pradesh Water Management Project Report
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
GCP/IND/176/NET Andhra Pradesh Water Management Project Report of the Evaluation Mission Hyderabad September 2008 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. i 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Background ............................................................................................................... 1 1.2. Methodology ............................................................................................................. 1 2. National Context and Background to the Project ......................................................... 2 2.1. National Context ....................................................................................................... 2 2.2. Origins of the Project ............................................................................................... 3 3. Assessment of Project Concept and Relevance .............................................................. 4 3.1. Project Theory .......................................................................................................... 4 3.2. Project Objectives and Logic .................................................................................. 5 3.3. Project Design ........................................................................................................... 5 3.4. Project Relevance ..................................................................................................... 6 4. Project Implementation ................................................................................................... 7 4.1. Project Budget and Expenditure ............................................................................ 7 4.2. Government Support ............................................................................................... 7 4.3. Project Management ................................................................................................ 8 4.4. Technical and Operational Backstopping .............................................................. 8 5. Project Contribution to the Development Objective .................................................. 10 5.1. Outputs and Results ............................................................................................... 10 5.1.1. Site Selection and Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) ........................... 10 5.1.2. Irrigation and Drainage Improvement ........................................................ 10 5.1.3. Agronomic Practices ...................................................................................... 14 5.1.4. Capacity Building and Training Activities .................................................. 15 5.2. Gender Issues .......................................................................................................... 15 5.3. Environmental Issues ............................................................................................. 16 5.4. Sustainability: institutional, social, technical and economic .............................. 16 5.5. Overall Effectiveness .............................................................................................. 17 5.6. Potential Long-term Impact .................................................................................. 17 6. Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................. 18 6.1. Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 18 6.2. Recommendations .................................................................................................. 19 Annex 1 - Terms of Reference for the evaluation of project GCP/IND/176/NET “Andhra Pradesh Water Management Project” ..................................................................................21 Annex 2 – Mission Itinerary and List of Persons Met.........................................................27 Annex 3 – List of Project Activities .......................................................................................31 Annex 4 – Socio-economic impact of project interventions in Modukuru and Mutluru pilot areas ................................................................................................................................ 39 ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i. The evaluation of GCP/IND/176/NET (Andhra Pradesh Water Management (APWAM) project) forms part of the overall evaluation of FAO’s activities in India over the period 2003-2008. A major part of FAO’s national project portfolio during the evaluation period consisted of three projects, funded by the Netherlands and implemented under the National Execution (NEX) modality. The project is implemented by the Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University (ANGRAU). Technical assistance was provided under a contract with Alterra-ILRI, a research institute of Wageningen University in the Netherlands. ii. Under FAO’s corporate evaluation policy, all projects with a budget in excess of USD 4 million are subject to at least one independent external evaluation during their period of operation. The findings of these evaluations will contribute to the decisions that must be taken soon by FAO on utilization of the unspent balance of funds from the Netherlands. iii. The project was intended to address the major problems in irrigated agriculture in Andhra Pradesh. Irrigation systems with supply-oriented design and operational procedures had provided insufficient means for tuning water deliveries to cropping patterns and actual water requirements. This had resulted in a number of inter-linked problems, including uncertainty and delay in release of canal supplies; unreliable and unequal availability of water supplies; very low irrigation efficiencies; sub-optimal cropping patterns and irrigation practices and inefficient irrigation methods; lack of conjunctive use of rain, ground and surface waters; and waterlogging and soil salinity in irrigation commands. These were compounded by the fact that farmers had not been involved in the maintenance and operation of irrigation and drainage systems when they were built and thus they did not perceive sufficiently a stake in their effective operation. iv. The APWAM project was based on the premise that irrigation rehabilitation, and adoption of crop production technologies that were both more water efficient and productive, would require a high degree of engagement with target beneficiaries (farmers in the command areas). It was unusual for a university in India to work directly with farmers in their fields. v. The evaluation found that the project was very relevant to State Government policy, the need to improve irrigation performance and equity in distribution of irrigation benefits and to involve farmers in the operation and maintenance of irrigation systems. The relevance was constrained somewhat by the fact that irrigation water is provided at a very nominal charge to farmers. Thus, farmer interest in water saving technologies becomes keen only in times of water scarcity. vi. The activities conducted by the project were appropriate to the project objectives and efficiently conducted. The project conducted PRAs at each project site that were used to determine the work programmes. Infrastructure improvement was carried out with the participation of farmers and required a financial contribution from them. This was commendable, as it gave beneficiaries a stake in effective operation the system. Several water-saving technologies for rice cultivation were tried in farmers’ fields and some may be of interest in case of water scarcity. However, at least in the pilot areas, SRI proved not to be popular, because of labour requirements. The project also developed other cropping alternatives that were both more water-efficient and showed greater financial returns to farmers. vii. Capacity building has been an important focus of the project, both formal training of scientific staff and activities for farmer training. The training activities at pilot sites i have been intensive and reinforced through specific campaigns. There is a continuing requirement for formal training, as some staff have been promoted or transferred. viii. At the level of the pilot sites, it is believed that most of the technologies that have been introduced can now be practiced by farmers on their own, if they choose to do so. However, in the last three years the pilot sites have received excellent monsoons. As water is priced very low, the incentive to conserve it is limited. Nonetheless, should water scarcity again become an issue, the farmers have been exposed to technologies that will greatly enhance their chances to raise a crop. ix. The project has met its objectives relating to equity of water distribution and water use efficiency, and creation of participatory research capacity at the level of the project sites. This was not easy; it is clear from the project reporting that much work had to be done to achieve the necessary level of “buy-in” from farmers in the target areas. A key factor has been the dedication of the project staff, including the continual presence of an able Project Manager. The project also benefited from a very high level of foreign technical assistance, considerably more than the norm in FAO-implemented projects. x. Finding ways to apply the expertise gained