Impact evaluation for: National Irrigation Rehabilitation Project - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Impact evaluation for: National Irrigation Rehabilitation Project PowerPoint presentation | free to view - id: 80d28-NTg5O



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Impact evaluation for: National Irrigation Rehabilitation Project

Description:

The schemes for rehabilitation were selected after reaching prior agreement with ... FOs should have been established before rehabilitation ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:50
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 33
Provided by: WB1673
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Impact evaluation for: National Irrigation Rehabilitation Project


1
Impact evaluation for National Irrigation
Rehabilitation Project
  • Case study 3
  • NONIE meeting in Lisbon
  • October 1, 2008

2
Section A Presentation of National Irrigation
Rehabilitation Project
3
Section A Presentation of National Irrigation
Rehabilitation Project
  • Background and rationale
  • Project concept and strategy
  • Project Goal Purpose
  • Components
  • Selection of Scheme
  • Project Implementation

4
National Irrigation Rehabilitation Project
  • 1.1Background and Rationale
  • Agriculture performance specially paddy
    production depended heavily on irrigation
  • Many irrigation schemes were old and deteriorated
    facilities resulted in poor water management
    practices led to loss of paddy
  • The irrigation facilities did not function
    properly due to poor attention on OM
  • Need to encourage farmers to assume full
    responsibility for OM and thereby reduce the
    role of Public Sector Involvement in irrigation
    management

5
Project Goal
  • Stabilize agricultural production and income and
    to raise the standard of living of farmers
    through rehabilitation and improved OM of
    existing irrigation schemes.

6
Project purpose
  • Stabilized and increase agricultural production
    on rehabilitated schemes through sustained and
    improved water management with OM of selected
    existing of irrigation schemes.

7
National Irrigation Rehabilitation Project
  • 1.2 The Project Concept and Strategy
  • In this backdrop the project strategy was
    inline with the Government National Irrigation
    subsector strategy to improve the performance of
    existing irrigation capacity and promote
    increased participation of farmers in the
    management and maintenance of schemes.
  • Rehabilitation
  • OM FOs
  • Instititional Strengthening

8
Project components
  • The proposed 7 year project (1991 to 1997)
    includes
  • Rehabilitation and improvement of 1000 minor and
    60 medium/major schemes covering about 37 500 ha
  • (b) Creating viable/healthy Farmer Organizations
    (FOs)
  • for managing the rehabilitated schemes and
    introduction of
  • improved OM practices in all
    rehabilitation schemes
  • (c) Upgrading the skills of farmers and staff of
    the implementing
  • agencies

9
Program Theory and results-chain
Network of Networks on Impact Evaluation
10
Project Management
  • Executing Agency - Min. Irrigation
  • Implementing Agencies - ID, ASD, PC
  • PMU PD , Consultants
  • National PCC Sec.Min Irrigation, Donor, IAs
  • Ptovincial PCC Chief Sec

Network of Networks on Impact Evaluation
11
Selection of Schemes
  • The schemes for rehabilitation were selected
    after reaching prior agreement with the
    respective FOs to undertake responsibility for
    the full cost of OM of minor schemes and
    Distribution and field cannels of major/ medium
    schemes after rehabilitation.
  • Minor Schemes 750 per ha
  • Participatory Planning, Management and Post Impl.

12
Project Implementation
  • Project reached physical rehabilitation targets
    civil works of 1048 minor schemes and 34
    major/medium schemes (completed in June 1999)
  • Established scheme levels FOs in all minor
    schemes and in all major/medium schemes.
  • Handed over 64 of completed schemes (ie 2/3) to
    registered FOs and 32 of DF cannels (ie 1/3)
    major/medium scheme to FOs

13
However the organizational and financial
viability of FOs remain uncertain
  • Handing-over process in many schemes is supply
    driven
  • (written agreement signed between IAs and
    FOs) and
  • remains a risk
  • Quality Assurance of Civil Works Project
    supported 14 Quality Control Labs. Equipments
    arrived after 80 work completed.

14
Findings of ICR
  • FOs should have been established before
    rehabilitation
  • Organisational and Ginancial Viability of FOs
    -Uncertain
  • Handing-over process in many schemes is supply
    driven
  • Unrealistic Assumtions Major Schemes Headworks
    and Main canals
  • Project Implementation Delays
  • Quality Assurance of Civil Works Project
    supported 14 Quality Control Labs. Equipments
    arrived after 80 work completed.
  • Cost Criteria Proprities only attended
    Partially completed schemes

Network of Networks on Impact Evaluation
15
Section B Impact evaluation of National
Irrigation Rehabilitation Project
16
Section-B Impact Evaluation of National
Irrigation Rehabilitation Project
  • Evaluation Framework and Context
  • Evaluation Questionnaires
  • Outcome Indicators
  • Theory and results framework
  • Evaluation Design
  • Challengers and Risk
  • Methodology
  • Implementation
  • Management
  • Expected Results
  • Expected Conclusions

17
Program Theory and results-chain
18
Impact Evaluation of National Irrigation
Rehabilitation Project
  • Evaluation Questions
  • 1.Relevence
  • 1.1 Is the project consistent National
    Irrigation
  • subsector strategies and policies of the
    government?
  • 1.2 Has the project included the need and
    priorities of
  • the farmers?
  • 1.3 Is the project components and activities are
    balanced
  • and relevant to the Goals and Purpose?
  • 1.4 Are the selected schemes, target groups,
    target
  • areas appropriate?

19
Evaluation Questions
  • 2.Efficiency
  • 2.1 Were the schemes rehabilitated successfully
    covering all civil works
  • specially Headwork and Delivery system
    (Cannels)?
  • 2.2 Is the cost incurred justify the degree of
    achievement of outputs and
  • outcomes? (Comparison with similar
    projects)
  • 2.3 Any alternative strategies that will achieve
    the same results?
  • 2.4 What factors that constrain or contribute to
    the efficiency of the project
  • implementation process?

20
Evaluation Questions
  • 3.Effectiveness
  • 3.1 Is the project strategy and sequence of
    activities appropriate?
  • 3.2 Are the schemes functional?.
  • State of the maintenance of irrigation
    structures
  • 3.3 Are the FOs are ready to undertake OM?
  • 3.4 Do the FOs have ability to generate funds to
    meet OM?
  • 3.5 How is the performance of FOs?.
  • 3.6 What are the hindering or contributing
    factors for project effectiveness?

21
Evaluation Questions
  • 4. Impact
  • 4.1 Has the overall goal being achieved?
  • 4.2 Has the intervention institutionalized
    improved water management
  • practices?
  • 4.3 Was there an increase in the Yield, Cropping
    intensity and Paddy
  • production in the scheme?
  • 4.4 Did the intervention improve the income and
    living standards of farmers in
  • the scheme?
  • 4.5 Any impacts on the institutions?

22
Cont… Evaluation Questions
  • 4. Impact
  • 4.6 Any external factors which influenced the
    impacts positively or
  • negatively?
  • 4.7 Any unintended effects and impacts of the
    project?
  • 4.8 Did the project had any influence on the
    policy?

23
Evaluation Questions
  • 5.Sustainability
  • 5.1 Will the termination of the project affect
    the outcomes and impacts?
  • 5.2 How far the schemes were successfully handed
    over to FOs for
  • maintenance?
  • 5.3 Have the FOs taken over OM responsibility
    of minor schemes and
  • selected FD Cannels in major/medium
    schemes?
  • 5.4 Ability of FOs to manage schemes, resolve
    water disputes, venture
  • into the marketing and input suppliers
    etc. and whether FOs are
  • economically and organizationally
    empowered through commercial
  • activities?

24
Evaluation framework and context
25
Outcome indicators
26
Evaluation design
  • Impact Evaluation
  • Focus - Program outcomes and Impact
  • - Program Effectiveness
  • Method - Outcome/Impact Measurement
    (Results)
  • - Before/After and with and without
    Analysis Framework (Treatment Group
    with Comparison Group/Counterfactual
    analysis)
  • - Cost benefit Analysis -
    EIRR
  • DAC/OECD - Relevance, Efficiency,
    Effectiveness, Impact, Sustainability
  • Criteria
  • Data - Secondary sources/Administration
    Records
  • - Primary sources
  • - Key informant interviews, Focus
    group discussions, Community
  • interviews, Semi
    structured survey interviews Direct
  • Observations.

27
Challenges and risks
  • Other Services are assured e.g. Extension
    Services, Seed Paddy, Fertilizer, Credit
  • FOs undertake contracts are financially
    benefitted
  • No political interferences in selection of
    schemes
  • Quality assurance system is in operation (civil
    works, soil esters etc.)
  • Stable and improved prices for agricultural
    products
  • No deterioration in catchment hydrology and
    rainfall pattern

28
Evaluation Methodology
  • Highly successful
  • Successful
  • Partly Successful
  • Unsuccessful
  • Judgment of the
  • Achievement
  • Verification of
  • achievement and results
  • Question designed to
  • addressed to criteria
  • Relevance, efficiency, effectiveness,
    impact
  • sustainability

29
Implementation
  • Evaluability Assessment (Program theory,
    availability of data, intended use)
  • Evaluation Plan
  • Appointment of the Management Group and Reference
    Group
  • Defining the TOR
  • Contracting the Evaluation and selecting
    evaluators
  • Desk Research
  • Scoping Session
  • Field Study
  • Analysis and drafting the report
  • Dissemination
  • Management response

30
Management
  • Reference Group
  • Management Group
  • National Evaluation Coordinator
  • Peer Reviews

31
Expected results
  • Insert text on expected evaluation results here

32
Expected conclusions
  • Insert text on expected evaluation conclusions
    here
About PowerShow.com