Project Number:	BGD/90/CO1
Project Title:	Grameen Deep Tubewell Irrigation Project (GDTIP)
Type of Evaluation:	Final
Government Executing Agency:	Bangladesh Ministry of Finance
Sector:	Natural Resources
Sub-Sector:	Irrigation
UNCDF Budget:	$US 6,507,000
Netherlands Gov't:	7,692,300
Total Project Budget:	$US 14,207,706
Total expenditures at evaluation:	$US 14,207,706
< evaluation:	$US 6,507,000
Duration:
Date Project Approved:	November 1992
Date Project Began:	July 1992
Date of Evaluation:	December 1998

II. Background

The project was formulated to develop a sustainable system of management of Deep Tubewells (DTWs) in northeast Bangladesh, as part of the liberalization of the irrigation sector. This reflected the need to rationalize donor-supported sunk investments in DTWs by the Bangladesh Water Development Board (BWDB) and the Bangladesh Agricultural Development Corporation (BADC), two government agencies. The original formulation was in 1990, with an inception report in July 1992 and the eventual signing of the project agreement in November 1992. A total of 805 DTWs were eventually handed over to the Grameen Krishi Foundation (GKF), an organization established for this purpose. The project was completed, with all funds used on schedule in September 1997.

This final evaluation took place one year after the end of the project, meaning that the sustainability of many project impacts could be assessed. From the outset it was clear that the project needed to be evaluated in both a narrow sense (in implementation of specified project activities) and a wider sense (in success in realizing the underlying development goals of the project). The ultimate judgement was based on this wider criterion—following consultation with all parties during the evaluation mission.
 
III. The Project

Development objectives

• To increase Bangladesh's food self-sufficiency, notably in rice and wheat, by maximizing the productive potential of sunk investments in irrigation facilities.

• To increase rural incomes and employment (for both landless and small farmers).

• To promote wider, more equitable access to irrigation and agricultural inputs.

• To develop improved models for the management of DTWs on a self-sustaining, cost recovery basis.

• In the long run, to provide landless groups, through a joint venture partnership with Grameen Bank, with the opportunity to own and operate DTW assets.

Immediate objectives

• To establish an efficient, commercially viable entity (the GKF) to manage the DTW assets and sell water, inputs and provide extension and other agricultural services to small farmers and achieve a positive operational cash flow by the fourth year of the project.

• To raise the productive potential of the 650 DTWs under the GKF's management (and the anticipated 500 it will take over in the next five years).

• To assist the crop diversification efforts of farmers within these DTW command areas.

Project components

The inception report specified five main project components:

1. Selection and improvement of DTW structures

2. Support to irrigated agriculture

3. Support to GKF management

4. Financial support to the Gender Action Programme (GAP)

5. Monitoring and evaluation.

The mid-term evaluation in 1994 recommended some changes to these components, but their recommendations were not accepted by the GKF. Their recommendations became a matter of some controversy and they have not been incorporated into any changes to the formal project documentation.
 
IV. Purpose of the Evaluation

To assess the effectiveness of the project in realizing the development and immediate objectives as set out in the project documents and to evaluate the effectiveness and sustainability of the GKF's management and implementation of the project.

V. Findings of the Evaluation

A. Assessment of results

The overall assessment of results is favourable. The project has major impacts on the overall goal of promoting sustainable rural development in the project areas. An assessment of impacts and sustainability concluded that there were largely positive impacts on the following key indicators:

• Food production and security: Aggregate food production and the diversity of production have both increased, improving food security at both the national and the household levels.

• Employment and income generation: The field research revealed a consensus on the positive effect of the GKF's activities on the income of participating households and on both direct and indirect employment.

• Access to factors of production: The inputs programme, credit programme and marketing activities have all significantly improved access to key factors of production (material, knowledge and credit) for participating households.

• Improved assets base: The credit programme, in particular, has significantly improved the asset base of participating households, providing secure and affordable credit that is usually invested in productive assets.

• Reduced vulnerability: The range of GKF activities together add up to reducing the vulnerability of rural livelihoods to external shocks and negative trends, with both increased net incomes and diversification crucial in this.

Project impacts on two further critical indicators (participation and empowerment and equity) were neutral or even marginally negative, a reflection of the GKF approach that is top-down in character and has concentrated on activities and participants that are likely to yield a good rate of return. Despite these caveats, the overall assessment of impact was positive, with positive outcomes discernible within the project's lifetime and the establishment of the GKF creating a potential for far greater long-term benefits. One major outcome of GDTIP has been the creation of the GKF as a financially viable entity that has continued to expand and is self-sustaining one year after the project has ended.

This satisfactory result needs to be qualified, however, by knowing that it was achieved through different means from those in the original project design. In particular, the operation of many deep tubewells (DTWs) proved not to be viable and achievements relating to their management have all fallen well short of targets. At project end, only 355 (48% of inception report targets) DTWs were viable, irrigating 12,616 acres (28% of target). The rest were closed, mostly because they were unable to compete with shallow tubewells (STWs), which are significantly cheaper providers of water (a national trend). Within this context, the GKF did attempt to manage and improve the DTW under its control. This included a substantial programme of physical investments in DTW systems that were implemented satisfactorily in technical terms, but which were not made on the basis of any assessment of the long-term viability of individual DTWs.

The GKF was aware of the problems with DTW viability from the outset and developed other programmes, such as the provision of agricultural inputs, crop diversification, seed production, product marketing and a major credit programme that are not contingent on DTW operations. These project components were, on the whole, effectively implemented and have been sustained beyond project end. They provide a basis for diversification of rural production, reduction of risk and improved access to factors of production that are at the heart of the GKF's positive relationship with the large (more than 60,000 households in the agricultural programme and over 62,000 women who have received loans) number of beneficiaries they support. Many of the crops introduced or promoted (maize, seeds, vegetables) are both more suited to local conditions and give higher returns than irrigated paddy production. The credit programme, which has a broader potential membership than many similar schemes in Bangladesh, was organized along classic Grameen Bank lines and has spread rapidly, proved to be popular with the participants and has attracted external funds to a state where these funds are now financially viable.

Unsatisfactory elements of implementation (for activities that the GKF could reasonably have been expected to do better) centered on the strategic planning and monitoring and evaluation aspects of the project (including participatory aspects of these issues). The project's monitoring and evaluation system is poor, despite specific objectives relating to it, and GKF has made no real attempt to assess its impact or effectiveness other than in financial terms. Similarly, the approach to participation was limited, with no concerted attempt to develop local control of DTW and the otherwise successful agricultural and credit programmes managed centrally. These unsatisfactory elements of the project should have been the focal point of recommendations in the annual and mid-term supervisory evaluations, but both failed to effectively analyse these problems and identify appropriate solutions; concentrating instead on the narrower issue of DTW irrigation.

B. Assessment of project design

The assessment identified fundamental problems with the project design. In particular, the basic assumption behind the project design, that DTW operations would be viable and form a basis for a wider process of development, was not adequately analysed and has proven to be inherently flawed. These flaws were not improved by the inception report or the mid-term evaluation, both of which introduced improvements to the project but did not address these fundamental design flaws. These flaws stem from the original conceptualization of the project as an irrigation-based process. All parties recognized that this was not a viable basis for development, but project documents were not changed or its implications analysed to redefine the project as a wider rural development strategy.

VI. Recommendations of the Evaluation Mission

The project will not be extended or considered for a new phase of support. This sets the context in which the mission's recommendations were formulated, as the overall satisfactory results could otherwise be expected to lead to recommendations for continuing support. The mission was convinced that the GKF, despite some limitations, would be a good partner for agencies looking to promote rural development activities. In this context, the mission makes the following recommendations for the GKF to consider in its future development process:

• The limitations of the approach towards strategic planning need to be overcome by developing a more flexible and appropriate strategic planning capability and establishing effective information flows and feasibility appraisal systems.

• These should in turn be built on a more devolved, flexible and participatory monitoring and evaluation system. The GKF should distinguish between M and E for local-level assessments and planning, monitoring and evaluation for the GKF's internal operational management and monitoring and evaluation for evaluation and strategic plans.

• The future of the DTWs under GKF control needs to be resolved, with the GKF improving decisions to operate or close individual DTWs and ensuring that they give local farmers adequate notice of whether and when the DTW will operate.

• The GKF should explore the scope for local management of DTWs—an aspect of the project identified as problematic, but still important.

• The GKF's support to agricultural production should be promoted and disseminated to new localities. Additional donor support should be sought for these activities.

• A more flexible, locally oriented approach to livestock and aquaculture activities should be developed.

• The scope for the further development of activities started under the Women's Support Programme should be investigated (in particular, activities connected with the involvement of women in agriculture emphasized).

• The credit programme should include very poor women, older women and female-headed households. There should also be more flexibility regarding the use of loans for agricultural purposes.

VII. Policy Implications and Lessons Learned

There are many important lessons to learn from this project. The key lessons identified by the mission are:

• The project design process needs greater attention. In particular, there needs to be more careful appraisal of the implications of the basic assumptions upon which the project is based and greater participation in the design process.

• In addition, the project's objectives and activities should be more flexible, (in particular, the scope built in to respond to opportunities as they arise) creating a development process that is not based on presumptions about particular technological or resource opportunities.

• The development of effective monitoring and evaluation is essential. Preparing baseline appraisals and monitoring systems should be a prerequisite for the start of such a project.

• The GDTIP demonstrates the importance of a strong local-level presence in rural development activities.

• There is a need for a more explicit and effective project supervision system, with agreed and documented procedures for approval of progress and changes.

• The internal structure and management of the GKF should reflect the need to develop a strategic planning and monitoring capability and a more decentralized pattern of operations.

• There is a need to develop innovative approaches to the long-term management of groundwater resources, including the integration of DTWs and STWs within locally controlled water markets.

VIII. Evaluation Team

The evaluation was executed by a joint evaluation team consisting of:

• Dr. John Soussan, team leader, University of Leeds

• Ms. Monawar Saltana and Mr. Masroor-Ul Haq Siddiqui, independent consultants

• Ms. Sophie de Caen (UNCDF) participated in the early stages of the mission.

• Mr. K. Ali Ahmed and Mr. A.K.M. Saifuzzaman (independent consultants) participated in the field research