April 2000
Rural and Agricultural Incomes in a Sustainable Environment
 (RAISE)
IQC No. PCE-1-00-99-00001-00
Submitted to:
USAID/Egypt
Submitted by:
ARD-RAISE Consortium
1601 N. Kent Street, Suite 800
Arlington, VA 22209
U.S.A.
www.ard-raise.org
A Midterm Assessment of the
Agricultural Policy Reform Program
in Egypt
 -RAISE
A Midterm Assessment of the
Agricultural Policy Reform Program
in Egypt
April, 2000
Presented to
USAID/Egypt
under the Rural and Agricultural Incomes with a Sustainable Environment (RAISE)
Contract No. PCE-I-00-99-00001-00, Task Order 808
ARD-RAISE Consortium
1601 North Kent St., Ste 800
Arlington, VA 22209
Tel: 703-807-5700, Fax: 703-807-0889
gkerr@arddc.com
The ARD-RAISE Consortium:
Associates in Rural Development, Cargill Technical Services,
Associates for International Resources and Development, CARANA Corporation,
A.P. Gross & Company, International Programs Consortium, Land O’ Lakes,
Purdue University, and TechnoServe
ii
 Agricultural Policy Reform Project
 Midterm Assessment: March 2000
PREFACE
This Midterm Assessment Report of the Agricultural Policy Reform Program is based on a draft
report dated 12th March 2000. It was prepared by an ARD-RAISE1
 team comprising Tom
Cusack, Team Leader; Jeff Dorsey, Institutional Management Specialist; Mahmoud Hussein
Kamel, Agricultural Organizations Specialist; Mohamed Zakaria Abdel Khalik, Agricultural
Economist and Gender Specialist; Salah M. Abdel Razek, Capacity Building Specialist; Atef
Abdel Halim Salaam, Training Specialist; and Seth Schick, Resource Economist. Jeff Dorsey
was provided by Cargill Technical Services, all the others were ARD employees.
This final report includes the revisions to the draft report which were suggested by USAID and
other stakeholders.
The team would like to thank all those individuals and institutions who have contributed their
time, ideas, comments, documents, and other resources to this work. The team was greatly
assisted by the excellent collaboration received from stakeholders at all levels and in all areas of
activity of the program. The team would particularly like to thank the APRP PMU team and the
EG/AP team at USAID, for their support and advice throughout the study period.
The team has greatly appreciated the free and frank exchange of ideas with all participants
during the course of the study, and feels — as a result — that a useful level of consensus was
reached on the findings and recommendations of the assessment.
The team feels that the assessment, particularly the stakeholder consultations during the course
of the work, has provided useful assistance to participants as they plan out strategies for the
remaining thirty months of the Agricultural Policy Reform Program.
 
1
 The ARD-RAISE Consortium provides technical management and resources to USAID’s Rural and Agricultural
Incomes with a Sustainable Environment Program. Its members are: Associates in Rural Development, Cargill
Technical Services, Associates for International Resources and Development, CARANA Corporation, A.P. Gross &
Company, International Programs Consortium, Land O’Lakes, Purdue University, and Technoserve.
iii
 Agricultural Policy Reform Project
 Midterm Assessment: March 2000
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
(INCLUDING A LISTING OF MAIN CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS)
In support of Egypt’s continuing economic reform efforts, the Government of Egypt (GOE) and
the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) are currently implementing
the Agricultural Policy Reform Program (APRP). The program makes annual cash disbursements
to the GOE as sector program assistance upon completion of policy reform benchmarks. The
program also provides technical assistance to GOE to assist with policy reforms. Until recently,
APRP operated through nine separate TA components, often referred to as units. Four units were
officed in the Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation (MALR), with five being collocated
with the Ministry of Public Works and Water Resources (MPWWR) — now renamed the
Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation (MWRI). Other Ministries closely involved in the
implementation of the APRP include the Ministry of Trade and Supply (MoTS) — now renamed
as the Ministry of Supply and Home Trade (MSHT), the Ministry of Public Enterprises (MPE),
and the Ministry of International Cooperation (MIC). Currently, however, APRP technical
assistance has been reduced to five units.
APRP covers the spectrum of activities associated with the policy process related to agriculture
and water in Egypt, from policy development to enactment, implementation, monitoring and
evaluation, and the assessment of impacts.
The primary purpose of this midterm assessment of APRP was to assist program participants
with planning of strategies and activities for the final thirty months of the program. The
assessment team’s approach was to work with the individual units, their collaborators, and their
intended beneficiaries to jointly review progress to date in order to suggest possible adjustments
to programs in the future. This assessment was as collaborative and participatory as schedules
and resources would allow, to facilitate the usefulness of the activity, given that major structural
changes had already been made to APRP in 1999 prior to agreement on the extension of the
program to September 30, 2002. During the process of the assessment, the team has assisted in
building consensus amongst stakeholders on APRP progress and future strategies.
The team placed greater emphasis on the activities of the five units which are expected to
continue to the end of the program. Data collection was centered on the main stakeholders, using
both formal questionnaire and informal rapid appraisal methods; more than two hundred
stakeholders were interviewed, and more than one hundred documents reviewed. The team
visited numerous field sites in Upper Egypt, the Nile Delta, Alexandria, and the Sinai.
Overall, the assessment of the historical record of APRP shows that the objectives of the
program are being achieved in a timely fashion and with high levels of efficiency. The GOE is
effectively removing remaining policy barriers to private enterprise through the activities of the
APRP, in ways that not only result in policies being developed and implemented, but that also
strengthen the process itself. There are clear indications that important improvements in the
policy environment, such as the ability of the agriculture and water related ministries to work
together, and the increased participation of the private sector in the policy process, have been
achieved through the activities of APRP. The reasons for such exceptional success, despite a
difficult operating environment, were found to include (i) flexibility in management by the
iv
 Agricultural Policy Reform Project
 Midterm Assessment: March 2000
USAID EG/AP team, the TA contractors, and Egyptian counterparts; (ii) the high levels of
technical and administrative competence of the main participants; and (iii) the commitment of
high-level GOE managers to the intended reforms. In particular, the principal APRP managers
successfully responded to constraints early in the program by redesigning the processes of
stakeholder interaction, enabling more limited but realistic benchmarks to be developed and
achieved.
Overall, the assessment finds that APRP is generally on track to consolidate its existing gains
during the final thirty months of implementation. No further structural changes in the program
are needed to effectively achieve program objectives as expressed through the benchmarks.
Existing program infrastructure, especially the successful establishment of high levels of
communications and confidence among the major participants, is expected to yield even larger
gains in terms of policies developed and implemented, as well as in terms of strengthening the
policy process itself. Regarding process, the assessment team feels that more attention should be
placed by participants on activities that will further strengthen the Egyptian policy process itself,
to increase sustainability following the termination of APRP. Regarding content, the assessment
team feels that some additional effort to address more ambitious and broader policies is justified
given the level of confidence the benchmark system now enjoys, and the need to prepare for
possible future USAID/DSP and other donor investments in the agricultural policy arena.
Regarding the program’s management structures, they have been very effective in meeting the
program’s objectives. Further, given the constraints USAID APRP staff, TA contractors, and
GOE have faced, participants made excellent, coordinated, and strategic changes, such as
replacing the task forces with the working groups, internal unit reorganizations, and reducing the
number of APRP units from nine to five. Management has generally been excellent across the
board in all TA units and at USAID. Given this productive framework, there appears little doubt
that APRP will continue to achieve its objectives as defined by the benchmarks. The Program
Planning Committee (PPC), particularly through the key role of the Program Director, Dr. Saad
Nassar, has played a central role in enabling often sensitive policy issues to be adequately
addressed through APRP. Linkages between Ministries, within Ministries, and with other
projects and donors have been promoted and strengthened.
Regarding the sustainability of the policies and processes supported by the program, more has
been accomplished than is generally recognized, despite the fact that sustainability was not an
explicit objective of the program. New policies developed under the program are generally
robust, with very limited levels of “backsliding”. Many of the improvements made under APRP
to the management of policy process itself are pervasive, and will no doubt greatly strengthen the
ability of the major Egyptian stakeholders to undertake future reforms. Much of this capacity
building is due to the overall excellent training achievements. Some of the training of local level
staff, however, was overly academic. The current training plan needs to be updated and
implemented more flexibly, and there has been insufficient follow-up to training events.
Regarding the monitoring and evaluation elements, these have served the needs of the program
well, and present plans to increase the intensity of impact studies appears justified if all
participants are to learn essential lessons from APRP. In particular, these impact studies will help
focus attention on the generally unsung successes of the program, which have not been
v
 Agricultural Policy Reform Project
 Midterm Assessment: March 2000
sufficiently communicated to date. The quality of data collection and analyses in MALR has
improved significantly due to the program.
The policies developed under APRP have been well-designed and appear to be readily
implementable, according to experience to date. The APRP policy design and implementation
procedures are increasingly being used as a model for policy development in other sectors. The
APRP policy framework has been flexibly applied, and an excellent level of participation from
the Ministries and others concerned has been achieved through careful consensus building.
The conclusions of the assessment for each of the nine units can be summarized as follows:
? The Program Management Unit (PMU) has provided the operational, administrative, and
financial management support required to implement APRP, and has provided the necessary
overall program facilitation role in linking with the APRP Project Director, the PPC, and
USAID/Egypt's Agricultural Policy Division. The effective role played by the Program
Coordinator has been particularly successful in ensuring that the APRP can work effectively
at the highest levels of government.
? The Monitoring, Verification & Evaluation Unit (MVE) is successfully fulfilling its
mandate of monitoring APRP activities, verifying benchmarks, and assessing program
impacts in an effective and timely way. Through interaction with the other participants in the
reform process, MVE has (i) precipitated a reduction in the number of benchmarks, (ii)
established clearly defined and measurable indicators of progress, and (iii) improved MALR
data quality. The unit has made excellent strategic decisions to (i) avoid complicated
modeling from the outset, (ii) link effectively with IFPRI’s work on baseline household
survey and farm management data, and (iii) emphasize lessons learned via impact
assessments and special studies (planned for the final thirty months of APRP).
? The Reform Design and Implementation Unit (RDI) has been central to the success of
APRP, particularly regarding the leadership shown by the unit in creating consensus on a
particular policy reform and then taking the essential steps toward implementation which can
demonstrate impacts on the lives of beneficiaries. Early APRP efforts were able to
consolidate previous gains in private trade in fertilizer. Privatization efforts have been
successful in rice milling to the extent that the subsector is now dominated by private sector
firms, and leasing arrangements developed for cotton textiles are currently being widely
applied to other sectors. RDI’s technical assistance on policy and procedural matters has been
a key factor in the establishment and consolidation of private sector associations and
councils, while its support for seed research, variety registration and property rights, and for
the transfer of seed multiplication and marketing to the private sector, are major
accomplishments of GOE through APRP. Other areas of success include trade analyses, the
design and implementation of transportation policies affecting farm exports, and possible
improvements made in cost of production and farm income data, and in data collection
techniques. RDI’s excellent collaboration with MALR, with other USAID projects, and with
other donors such as GTZ, FAO and the World Bank, has greatly contributed to the
effectiveness of the whole APRP program and to improving Egypt’s long-range agricultural
strategy.
vi
 Agricultural Policy Reform Project
 Midterm Assessment: March 2000
? The Food Security Research (FSR) activities, in collaboration with MOTS and MALR,
provided a secure empirical basis for GOE decision-making in the areas of food subsidies,
rural employment generation, and wheat market stabilization and liberalization. The
institutional capacity of the collaborating Ministries to collect survey data has been greatly
strengthened in the process. National dialogue on poverty issues has been significantly
advanced by IFPRI’s work. Nevertheless, FSR activity ceased to function as an independent
TA component unit under APRP on October 21, 1999.
? The Water Policy Reform Assistance (EPIQ) has been a key factor in the success of APRP
by effectively assisting MWRI in identifying and carrying out a wide range of water-related
policy reforms. The unit coordinated all activities and has worked very successfully with the
MWRI Steering Committee, the Water Policy Advisory Unit (WPAU), and key Ministry
officials. Coordination with USAID and WPAU has been particularly effective in identifying
and achieving annual policy reform benchmarks, and Ministry decision-makers who are
responsible for actually implementing policy reform measures have been included in all
stages of the policy reform process. In addition, this unit has fostered excellent collaboration
with MALR and other GOE agencies, other USAID projects, and related donor activities.
With EPIQ assistance, significant reforms have been achieved in drainage water reuse,
broadening water user participation at higher levels of the irrigation system, maximizing
groundwater in horizontal expansion areas, water quality, and drainage reuse.
? The Water Policy Advisory Unit (WPAU) is effective in initiating water policy processes
related to the MWRI, and has achieved significant policy change. The MWRI now has, for
the first time, a strong link with a unit that is capable of leading the water policy process. The
leadership shown by the Head of WPAU has been particularly important in this success.
? The Water Education & Communication Unit (GreenCOM III) has successfully
strengthened the Water Communications Unit’s (WCU) irrigation field staff with more
effective communications skills, and has effectively guided the institutional development of
the WCU. The GreenCOM/WCU program was closely linked with implementation of
specific policies, and this was crucial for its overall success within the context of APRP.
Working in close harmony with EPIQ and the WPAU, this unit assisted MWRI in tasks
directed at increasing farmer participation in the policy process and in changing farmers’
behavior. The work of this unit is central to improving the enabling environment for
strengthening the policy process and for the achievement of broad-based policy reform in the
water area. The potential impact of communications activities for the achievement of policy
reform is much reduced following the termination of external assistance to this program. This
activity ceased as a separate TA component under APRP as of October 28, 1999, when the
technical assistance provided to the Ministry’s Water Communications Unit under APRP
ended.
? The Main Systems Management II (MSM) activity successfully achieved its objective of
assisting the Planning Sector of the MWRI to install a telemetry data system to manage water
distribution. The new telemetry system has been fully installed and MWRI staff adequately
vii
 Agricultural Policy Reform Project
 Midterm Assessment: March 2000
trained it its maintenance and operation. MSM was terminated as a separate activity
providing technical assistance to the Ministry’s Telemetry program as of November 4, 1999.
? The Monitoring, Forecasting and Simulation (MFS) activity is being successfully
implemented and the technical assistance provided to MFS under APRP will end on June 30,
2000. MFS has already been institutionalized within MWRI, and MFS staff have been well￾trained through effective technical assistance to take full responsibility for unit management
and operation. This component operates the Ministry’s Nile Forecast Center, which monitors
Nile River flow above the High Aswan Dam.
The main recommendations of this midterm assessment are:
? Policy development and implementation work should continue as planned, although
increased effort to further broaden the policy dialogue and the design of future policy is
appropriate in the final period of APRP.
? More private sector participation on the PPC should be encouraged, through the addition of
representatives of trade and farmer associations.
? Additional work on price policy and privatization in the cotton industry is needed through
APRP or other donor activities such as the Development Support Program (DSP).
? Employment and gender should be crosscutting issues for more of APRP’s work.
? MVE should increase its efforts in impact assessments and special studies so that the lessons
learned are captured and future opportunities are identified. IFPRI’s household survey should
be repeated and extended.
? It may now be possible to intensify “big picture” studies and work on issues affecting
agriculture and water that have been too controversial to cover as benchmarks in the past.
Some examples could be the impact of changes in the exchange rate on agricultural trade, the
comparative advantage of changes in cropping patterns, constraints to improving water
quality, and cost sharing of water conveyance costs.
? The telemetry system structure could be divided into regional submanagement systems based
on MWRI’s formal institutionalized structure nationwide.
? Training programs in some areas such as the environment, and gender issues, should be
designed as a collaborative effort bringing the staff of the main implementing Ministries
together on joint activities.
? The constraints placed on APRP for its hiring of higher-cost but highly productive Egyptian
staff should be reviewed.
? APRP should continue to encourage and stimulate interministerial cooperation for all
activities.
viii
 Agricultural Policy Reform Project
 Midterm Assessment: March 2000
? Increased levels of daily working contact between the junior-level WPAU staff and EPIQ TA
advisors on practical policy-related matters should be encouraged.
? WPAU functions should be incorporated into MWRI by September 2001, to enable APRP to
support the policy process in the Ministry itself.
? For Tranche V, APRP should immediately try to integrate social sciences into its policy
studies at the earliest stages.
? Institute a policy within MWRI that all new APRP programs that have impact on water users,
including the activities of directorate level and below irrigation engineer’s activities, should
be implemented with a water communications component, designed from the outset as an
integral part of the package. This implies, and would further support, the need for external
assistance to this unit.
? Encourage, plan, and implement communications tasks jointly carried out by appropriate
MALR and MWRI units.
? Some funding should be reserved, without being earmarked for particular studies, for use in
studying reform issues that come up between now and the end of APRP.
? Although the APRP approach is well-documented in terms of individual studies of policies
that it has assisted in changing, a more general study of the approach to policy design and
implementation used by TA and national staff might be worthwhile in order to leave behind
lessons for future reform programs in agriculture and in other areas.
The APRP program has been extraordinarily successful to date, although with somewhat greater
emphasis on policy development and implementation for specific commodities than originally
envisaged. APRP should now extend its policy reform programs to broader, possibly systemic
initiatives, at the same time limiting the various foci on more specific policy areas. In particular,
can overarching broader policy objectives be incorporated into the benchmarks, given the
APRP’s formidable policy process infrastructure and its success with generally more
circumscribed policies to date?
ix
 Agricultural Policy Reform Project
 Midterm Assessment: March 2000
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE ..................................................................................................................................... ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................ iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..............................................................................................................ix
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .........................................................................................................x
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................1
CHAPTER 2. APRP AND ITS CONTEXT...........................................................................6
CHAPTER 3. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS..............................................................12
3.1 MANAGEMENT STRUCTURES............................................................................12
3.2 SUSTAINABILITY.....................................................................................................15
3.3 MONITORING AND EVALUATION.......................................................................20
3.4 POLICY REFORM....................................................................................................21
CHAPTER 4. RECOMMENDATIONS ...............................................................................25
ANNEX 1. STATEMENT OF WORK..................................................................................A1-1
ANNEX 2. LIST OF CONTACTS ........................................................................................A2-1
ANNEX 3. BIBLIOGRAPHY.................................................................................................A3-1
x
 Agricultural Policy Reform Project
 Midterm Assessment: March 2000
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
APRP Agricultural Policy Reform Program
DSP Development Support Program
DT2 Development Training 2 Project
EG/AP Agricultural Policy Division of the USAID Economic Growth unit
EPIQ Water Policy Reform Assistance
FAO Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations
FSR Food Security Research
GOE Government of Egypt
GreenCOM III Water Education & Communication Unit
GTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit
IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute
IIE Institute of International Education
MALR Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation
MFS Monitoring, Forecasting and Simulation
MIC Ministry of International Cooperation
MoTS Ministry of Trade and Supply (see MSHT)
MOU Memoranda of Understanding
MPE Ministry of Public Enterprises
MPWWR Ministry of Public Works and Water Resources (see MWRI)
MSHT Ministry of Supply and Home Trade
MSM Main Systems Management II
MVE Monitoring, Verification & Evaluation Unit
MWRI Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation
PACD Project Assistance Completion Date
PMU Program Management Unit
PPC Program Planning Committee
RDI Reform Design and Implementation Unit
TA Technical Assistance
USAID United States Agency for International Development
WCU Water Communications Unit
WPAU Water Policy Advisory Unit
1
 Agricultural Policy Reform Project
 Midterm Assessment: March 2000
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
In support of Egypt’s continuing economic reform efforts, the Government of Egypt (GOE) and
the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) are currently implementing
the Agricultural Policy Reform Program (APRP). The program consists of two main contractual
elements: the Agricultural Sector Program Assistance element (263-K-631) and the Technical
Assistance for Agricultural Policy Reform element (263-0219). Cash disbursements are made to
GOE as sector program assistance based upon completion of policy reform benchmarks. The
program also provides technical assistance to GOE to assist with policy reforms. Until recently,
APRP operated through nine separate TA components, often referred to as units. Four units were
officed in the Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation (MALR), with five being collocated
with the Ministry of Public Works and Water Resources (MPWWR) — now renamed the
Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation (MWRI). Other Ministries closely involved in the
implementation of the APRP include the Ministry of Trade and Supply (MoTS) — now renamed
as the Ministry of Supply and Home Trade (MSHT), the Ministry of Public Enterprises (MPE),
and the Ministry of International Cooperation (MIC). Currently, however, APRP technical
assistance has been reduced to five units.
The nine activities (“units”) can be briefly described as follows:
? Program Management Unit (PMU): (i) provides the overall coordination and technical
services to ensure synergy among all APRP units; and (ii) provides key operational,
administrative, and financial management support required to implement APRP. This unit is
the main link with the Program Planning Committee (PPC), which oversees APRP activities,
2
 Agricultural Policy Reform Project
 Midterm Assessment: March 2000
with the APRP Project Director, Dr. Saad Nassar, and with USAID/Egypt's Agricultural
Policy Division.
? Monitoring, Verification & Evaluation Unit (MVE): (i) monitors and verifies GOE
performance in meeting the policy benchmarks agreed to in the annual Memoranda of
Understanding (MOU), (ii) provides input to the formulation of policy benchmarks and to the
development and implementation of local currency funded projects, and (iii) provides policy
impact assessments and studies.
? Reform, Design and Implementation Unit (RDI): (i) provides guidance on removing
remaining barriers to private enterprise development in agriculture; (ii) takes the lead in
policy benchmark formulation and the development of local currency funded projects,
including ex ante impact assessments; (iii) makes recommendations regarding the use of the
local currency generated from the sales of U.S. source/origin commodities; and (iv)
collaborates with the MVE unit to develop verifiable policy benchmarks and indicators to
monitor APRP reform activities.
? Food Security Research (FSR): (i) determines the possible impacts ongoing reforms may
have on the food security of Egyptians, with a particular focus on impacts among the poorer
segments of society, (ii) identifies alternatives for a more cost-effective social safety net, (iii)
assists with the design of a more cost-effective system of food subsidies, (iv) makes
recommendations for pilot testing food subsidy system(s), (v) generates indicators for
3
 Agricultural Policy Reform Project
 Midterm Assessment: March 2000
tracking food insecurity during the course of economic adjustment, and (vi) was responsible
for the household expenditure and income survey.
? Water Policy Reform Assistance (EPIQ): assists MWRI (i) identify, plan, and carry out
water-related policy reforms; and (ii) identify and achieve annual policy reform benchmarks,
working closely with the MPWWR Steering Committee, Water Policy Advisory Unit
(WPAU), and other key ministry officials.
? Water Policy Advisory Unit (WPAU): as the GOE counterpart to EPIQ and decision
support unit for the Minister’s office, it assists MWRI to (i) identify and carry out water￾related policy reforms; and (ii) identify and achieve annual policy reform benchmarks,
interceding with the Minister's office and the MWRI Steering Committee on behalf of all
USAID-sponsored APRP activities.
? Water Education & Communication Activity: assists MWRI’s Water Communications
Unit (WCU) to (i) improve MWRI skills in organizing and communicating with water users,
(ii) increase farmer participation in policy development and implementation, and (iii) change
farmers’ behavior toward water resources and management.
? Main Systems Management II (MSM): assists the Planning Sector of MWRI to (i) install a
telemetry data system to manage water distribution, and (ii) improve the efficiency of
telemetry system operation and maintenance.
4
 Agricultural Policy Reform Project
 Midterm Assessment: March 2000
? Monitoring, Forecasting and Simulation (MFS): assists MWRI in establishing a
monitoring, forecasting, and simulation program for hydrologic and meteorological
conditions in the upper Nile basin. It is commonly called the Nile Forecast Center.
APRP is scheduled to end in September 2002, so the primary purpose of this midterm assessment
was to assist program participants with planning of strategies and activities for the final thirty
months of the program.
The assessment team consisted of three U.S. and four Egyptian consultants, as follows: Tom
Cusack, Team Leader; Jeff Dorsey, Senior Institutional Management Specialist; Mahmoud Hussein
Kamel, Agricultural Organizations Specialist; Mohamed Zakaria Abdel Khalik, Agricultural
Economist and Gender Specialist; Salah M. Abdel Razek, Capacity Building Expert; Atef Abdel
Halim Salaam, Training Specialist; and Seth Schick, Resource Economist. Jeff Dorsey was
provided by Cargill Technical Services, all the others were ARD employees.
Following initial discussions, the team developed a work plan, based on the original Statement of
Work (Annex 1). The objectives of the assessment were to assist stakeholders in
? assessing management structures, sustainability, monitoring and evaluation, and policy
reform aspects of the program; and
? developing recommendations for future program implementation.
Emphasis was placed on the five units that are expected to continue until the PACD: RDI, EPIQ,
MVE, WPAU, and PMU. For each unit, progress towards declared objectives was reviewed,
5
 Agricultural Policy Reform Project
 Midterm Assessment: March 2000
including the identification of those factors important in assisting or constraining progress. This was
followed by the development of recommendations. During the process of the assessment, the team
has assisted in building consensus amongst stakeholders on APRP progress and future strategies.
Data collection activities were centered on the main stakeholders: MALR, MWRI, MPE, MoTS
(now MSHT), USAID staff, TA Contractors, GOE officials, and the private sector. More than
one hundred persons were interviewed (Annex 2), many more than once, and more than one
hundred documents were reviewed (Annex 3). The team visited field sites in Upper Egypt,
Lower Egypt and the Sinai, as well as numerous stakeholders in and close to Cairo. During the
last weeks of the assessment, the team shared emerging results with stakeholders via meetings and
draft documents in order to obtain additional feedback and consensus before finalizing the
assessment report.
The remainder of this report analyses the context of APRP (Chapter 2), and presents the study’s
findings and conclusions (Chapter 3), and recommendations (Chapter 4).
6
 Agricultural Policy Reform Project
 Midterm Assessment: March 2000
CHAPTER 2. APRP AND ITS CONTEXT
The continuing Egyptian policy process of developing agricultural policy through the appropriate
Ministries in collaboration with stakeholders, enacting legislation to provide a secure basis for
implementation, implementing enacted policies, and monitoring policy impacts, has been
paralleled in APRP by a set of structures which are related to but for the most part not an integral
part of the mainstream Egyptian policy process.
APRP has created a Ministerial-level committee, which seldom meets, and a more formal
Program Planning Committee to oversee policy development at the highest levels, as well as
Task Forces to provide the principal focus for policy development in specific identified areas of
concern. In addition, APRP has also created six “units” (PMU, EPIQ, WPAU, MVE, RDI, and
FSR) which do not operate as integral parts of the existing policy infrastructure, although they
have close links with the infrastructure. These units work primarily with hired APRP local
personnel. The three other APRP units (MFS, MSM, and GreenCOM III), which were in
existence prior to project start-up, have operated directly through existing structures, and work
principally through existing Ministry personnel. The functions of each of the APRP units are
described in Chapter 1. Essentially, the APRP policy formulation and implementation activities
are led by RDI/PMU for agriculture and related Ministries and by EPIQ/WPAU for the water
and related Ministries. MVE and FSR concentrate on monitoring of implementation and impact,
and other studies which may support the basis for policy development. MSM, MFS and
GreenCOM III are in the implementation area of the policy process, although they potentially, in
common with other Ministry units, could impact policy formulation activities.
7
 Agricultural Policy Reform Project
 Midterm Assessment: March 2000
An important feature of APRP is its cash disbursement system, where USAID provides cash
payments directly to GOE upon achievement of policy benchmarks, which are agreed upon and
verified on a tranche basis. In order to develop, agree, and implement specific benchmarks, the
stakeholders concerned have created "working groups". RDI and EPIQ/WPAU take the lead for
developing and enacting benchmarks, which are annual indicators of achievement of agreed￾upon policy reform measures related to agricultural and water resources policy, with MVE
providing an assessment of the level of achievement at the end of the implementation period
(usually one year).
Thus, APRP was designed as a parallel structure, which would be able to generate the necessary
policies by energizing important elements of the existing structure, without becoming internal
players in the system. The main requirement here was for APRP staff to have productive
relations with a relatively few well-placed decision-makers, so policy could be formulated and
agreed upon more effectively, largely outside of the Ministry structures.
This parallel process seems to have worked well, if measured according to the agreed
benchmarks. Benchmarks were generally achieved, and good progress was made in
implementing policy activities. The basis for this achievement was excellent management of the
process by the TA contractors and by USAID; only benchmarks that had been carefully
negotiated with senior management were selected, and these were perceived as having a high
chance of success. In particular, the ability of APRP and USAID personnel to liase directly with
high-ranking personnel was crucial to this success; in this regard, key influential Egyptian staff
was selected to lead the APRP/GOE linkage process. If the agreed benchmarks are taken as the
8
 Agricultural Policy Reform Project
 Midterm Assessment: March 2000
objectives, then the APRP can be said to have been a great success to date. Many policy reforms
were developed and implemented, and the verification process undertaken was effective in
demonstrating the level of achievement that then provided the basis for cash disbursement. In
addition, the agriculture and water Ministries have shown that they can work together on specific
tasks, and the benchmark process is well-established and functional, providing a base of
experience on which to build for the future.
If the original intent of APRP — to develop and enact broad policies related to water and
agriculture — is the criterion of success, however, then APRP has possibly been less successful.
Benchmarks have represented relatively minor changes, compared to the ambitious program
envisaged by the original APRP Project Paper.
Nevertheless, the team feels that the strategy chosen by the USAID and TA teams, of ensuring a
stream of outputs at a relatively modest level, was a good choice, given the constraints to
attempting to implement a more ambitious program. Thus, it appears that USAID, the TA teams
and GOE have implemented the program using a coordinated, practical, and balanced approach.
The constraints that have pressured the program into more mini-step policy development and
policy implementation activities included:
? A difficult enabling environment for the policy process, due to a general lack of
transparency, excessive departmentalism within GOE, undeveloped information systems,
9
 Agricultural Policy Reform Project
 Midterm Assessment: March 2000
limited vehicles for creating public awareness, and a lack of collaborative and participatory
approaches.
? The policy process itself is a relatively new phenomenon, especially in water-related matters,
so there was a need to bolster and extend the existing policy process infrastructure.
? The USAID results package ensures that short-term (usually annual) and low-risk activities
are preferred over long-term and high-risk ventures. This is because results must be
measurable and attainable, if further funds are to be assured. The constant competition for
funds at USAID, typically under a decreasing overall funding and staffing plan, is intense,
and a lack of achievement of benchmarks of result indicators can expose a whole program to
immediate cutbacks. USAID staff members are therefore encouraged to pursue the sure and
short, rather than the potentially higher payoff activities, especially in the case of agricultural
policy that is normally risky and long-term. It would appear to be difficult for USAID to
effectively use its current tools to implement such a policy program.
? The TA contractors are in a similar position to USAID, but even more sensitive, as they will
be the first affected if agreed results are not being achieved.
? GOE learned early in the APRP policy process that cash disbursements were available only
upon annual results achievements, and so, to the extent that GOE participation in the process
is itself evaluated on the basis of success in attracting all available funds, GOE participants
would have an incentive to design relatively unambitious and secure benchmarks. This was
reinforced by the early perception through the PPC that undisbursed tranche funds may be
lost to the program in future years.
10
 Agricultural Policy Reform Project
 Midterm Assessment: March 2000
Another element of “balance” in the program is in the level of strengthening of the Egyptian
policy process. APRP was not conceived as a capacity-building project, although substantial
training funds were made available and used, and considerable capacity building has been
achieved. Again, the USAID need for measurable indicators of progress, the long-term nature of
institutional strengthening, and recent strategic moves by USAID away from capacity building,
have ensured that APRP outputs are actual policies and related implementation activities, rather
than increases in the Egyptian system’s ability to develop and implement policies in the future.
Consequently, APRP will leave relatively little institutional capacity when it ends, unless the
activities of the final 30 months of APRP are more closely linked to institutionalization. One
example of a possible development in this regard, is the strategy WPAU; should an attempt be
made to institutionalize it while APRP is still able to support his transition, or should it drive
through more policies while it is still functional? This is a matter of judgement by the
participants, and the relative importance they place on potential long-term process benefits,
compared to short-term policy enactment benefits.
APRP was originally conceived of as an agricultural program; only at the last moment were the
water units added, given the need for a financial home for these programs in the absence of a
separate water program at USAID. Although the implementation of the APRP water and
agriculture programs has remained largely separate, one of the most striking features of the
program is the way it has enhanced communication and coordination between the agriculture and
water Ministries, with interministerial networking productively supported through APRP funds.
11
 Agricultural Policy Reform Project
 Midterm Assessment: March 2000
APRP was significantly changed during 1999, with only five of the nine original units, PMU,
EPIQ, WPAU, RDI, and MVE extended up to the new program completion date of September
30, 2002. Given the reductions in program funding, this was an appropriate restructuring of the
program, which will assist in focusing the overall APRP effort on the main targeted areas of
policy.
12
 Agricultural Policy Reform Project
 Midterm Assessment: March 2000
CHAPTER 3. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The assessment team has discussed details of the findings and conclusions with APRP units and
their clients, and detailed background notes have been prepared and shared with the units
concerned. This chapter summarizes the main findings and conclusions discussed.
3.1 MANAGEMENT STRUCTURES
From a thorough review of documentation, numerous interviews with key players, and
participation in/observation of management processes during the assessment period, the team
finds that the overall management, organization, focus, and implementation progress to date has
been appropriate, coordinated, and is functioning to achieve project objectives of removing
remaining policy barriers to private enterprise in the agriculture and water sectors through the
benchmark system. APRP is therefore making significant contributions to creating a liberal,
competitive marketing system, and to stimulating sustainable agricultural growth.
The TA teams and their home offices have provided excellent intellectual leadership and
implementation support. In the rare case where TA was not performing, then quality
replacements were quickly found, with virtually no disruption to the program.
The level and quality of USAID support from EG/AP has been excellent. APRP is supported by
a technically and administratively competent team, which works collaboratively with the other
main stakeholders and has effectively negotiated necessary changes in APRP management
structure, to take account of significant constraints both within and outside of USAID.
13
 Agricultural Policy Reform Project
 Midterm Assessment: March 2000
The team has observed that coordination and integration between APRP and other USAID
projects and other donors who have responsibility for policy reform has been most productive
and generally timely. This has particularly been the case with the related USAID privatization
and export related projects.
The TA contractors and USAID have effectively planned and managed their consultants to
ensure that they are being properly and effectively utilized by the main participants.
The PPC, the MPWWR Steering Committee, and numerous informal links between key
individuals have performed well in terms of ensuring consensus on proposed policy benchmarks
is reached at the highest levels. The leadership and facilitation roles of the APRP Director, the
APRP Coordinator, the Directors/Chiefs-of-Party of RDI, WPAU, and EPIQ, and USAID
EG/AP staff has been particularly effective. Just as crucial has been the — often courageous —
commitment to reform demonstrated by the key APRP collaborators of GOE. Strong and crucial
linkages have thus been developed to senior decision-makers within participating ministries.
The PPC has been effective within the context of agreeing upon benchmarks and overseeing the
management processes of APRP itself. It has not generally been able to effect broad policy
dialogue through the Task Forces, however, and the participation of the private sector has been
weak. Private sector membership is too small and could be strengthened by appointment of
active participants who have a strong private sector agenda to bring to the table.
14
 Agricultural Policy Reform Project
 Midterm Assessment: March 2000
APRP participants have ensured that management structures have changed in response to
operating constraints. The Task Forces were abandoned in favor of working groups, which were
much more effective in focusing effort on the benchmarks. Overall, the program’s policy and
decision-making processes have been strengthened. Strengthening of the overall Egyptian policy
process has been more limited, due to the parallel rather than integrated nature of the APRP’s
management structures, the lack of participation of the private sector at the Task Force/PPC
level, and the lack of APRP Interministerial Committee meetings.
Specific findings and conclusions included:
? Program and administrative leadership is strong across all APRP units, USAID, and the key
GOE participants. The quality of work of both long-term and short-term consultants is high.
? Through interaction with the other participants in the reform process, MVE has encouraged
the reduction in the number of benchmarks, has established clearly defined and measurable
indicators of progress, and is improving MALR data quality.
? MVE’s decision to avoid complex modeling from the outset released resources for more
valuable and focused activities.
? RDI has developed strong linkages with decision-makers both within participating ministries
and in the ever larger number of ministries that have been brought in to solve policy or
procedural issues relevant to their ministry. In conjunction with EPIQ, RDI’s work in some
water and fisheries areas has had the effect of improving communication within MALR and
MWRI.
15
 Agricultural Policy Reform Project
 Midterm Assessment: March 2000
? RDI’s technical assistance on policy and procedural matters has been a key factor in the
establishment and consolidation of private sector associations and councils.
? Support on transportation policies affecting farm exports, seed research, variety registration,
property rights, and transfer of seed multiplication and marketing to the private sector, are
major accomplishments of RDI.
? Although privatization is a major issue in policy reform, very limited TA human resources
are allocated to implement such activities. No specific counterpart assigned to this activity
exists within MPE and this deficiency should be corrected. There is also a need for better
coordination with privatization efforts of MPE, which is working at present with another
USAID-funded project. Absence of the appropriate counterpart at MPE limits APRP’s ability
to achieve objectives in accomplishing privatization benchmarks. This conclusion, however,
must be viewed within the current context of refocusing APRP away from privatization.
? An example of the effectiveness of informal groupings of key players within the more formal
APRP management structure is that of USAID coordinating at regular intervals with the
EPIQ Chief-of-Party and the Head of WPAU. This close working relationship has helped to
guide the development of water-related policy reform within the scope of APRP.
3.2 SUSTAINABILITY
From a thorough review of APRP training plans and other documentation, numerous interviews
with key players (including a formal survey of 140 participant trainees), and participation
in/observation of program activities during the assessment period, the team finds that the
technical assistance contractors, with careful USAID guidance, have effectively designed and
implemented policy reform design, implementation, monitoring, verification, and evaluation of
16
 Agricultural Policy Reform Project
 Midterm Assessment: March 2000
reforms, training, and program support services to enhance MALR, MWRI, MSHT, and other
participating ministries' involvement and decision-making processes. The level of participation
by PPC members and GOE officials has been sufficient to help sustain future programs in the
context of APRP activities. These processes have been very successful according to APRP
objectives, which did not explicitly call for sustainability, except in the case of “back sliding” on
policies already enacted. The team finds that the extent of “back sliding” has been minimal,
given the fluctuating world market conditions and domestic short-term protection pressures.
The prospects for institutionalizing a formalized policy reform planning process within the
participating ministries have thus been much improved through APRP actions. This has not been a
major pursuit of the program to date, however, and would need considerably more attention in the
months ahead if significant progress is to be made. In particular, APRP continues as a parallel,
rather than as an integrated operation. Given that policy reform process is new to MWRI and the
fact that a water policy unit has been established within the Ministry under APRP, this would seem
an excellent opportunity for that unit (WPAU) to become a formal part of MWRI structure and
budget, instead of existing only by ministerial decree, as at present.
APRP’s professional training programs (in-service and participant) have been timely and
relevant, with the needs and constraints of beneficiary groups, including women, being addressed
to the extent practically possible. APRP training plans have been clearly based on institutional
needs, satisfying program goals and objectives and the requirements of ADS 253 and related
Mission Orders. Current training plans would be more applicable if they were updated, however,
17
 Agricultural Policy Reform Project
 Midterm Assessment: March 2000
with increased participation of the implementing units such as RDI and EPIQ/WPAU in all
training aspects.
Specific findings and conclusions included:
? The impact of training is clearly shown to have improved the standard of preparation and
publication of quality studies and reports, and the quality of questionnaires and data analysis.
? The needs and constraints of specific targeted beneficiary groups such as women have been
studied, mainly through RDI, while MVE has monitored progress on how policies might
affect such groups.
? The privatization and leasing arrangements developed specifically to get around privatization
roadblocks in the textile industry are also being successfully applied in other sectors.
? Although capacity building is not addressed in the TA contract, it has been achieved as an
effect of the units’ activities. For example, MVE’s need for high-quality data fueled its joint
efforts with MALR to develop practices improving data quality, which have since been
adopted by MALR. The TA team provides the ministries with diagnosis, recommendations,
and required training on an ongoing basis to improve data collection and handling methods.
Furthermore, forecasting models for crops such as wheat and cotton help the ministry staff
provide estimates for principal crops. The operations of all APRP TA units appear to have a
similar impact.
? The training plan for MALR was originally designed to be implemented over three years.
Due to Development Training 2 (DT2) procedures and contractual arrangements,
implementation occurred over the short span of one year. This situation led to an ad hoc
18
 Agricultural Policy Reform Project
 Midterm Assessment: March 2000
selection of trainees. Some of those selected were over-trained, with some individual staff
members attended five training sessions with an average of 17 days each.
? There is a need to update the training need assessments for the participating GOE
implementing agencies, given the dynamic nature of APRP since its inception in 1996.
Although training needs have been well catered for through RDI and DT2 training plans to
date, the needs of the next 30 months are almost certainly not well reflected in the original
training plans
? The results of the assessment team’s survey of participant trainees in MoTS (now MSHT),
MALR, MWRI, and MPE showed that almost all training plan objectives were achieved.
Participants were satisfied with the quality and content of the instruction, with high levels of
subsequent use of the new skills in their workplace being reported. The participants felt that
there should be more attention to practical rather than academic instruction, and that it should
be more tailored to the Egyptian environment. Less than 50 percent felt that their
employment/promotion prospects had increased as a result of the training.
? The proportion of women in training programs was generally equal to their proportion in the
targeted workforce, but many programs included a much higher proportion of women.
? The post-training follow-up for trainees by APRP and DT2 units was inadequate, particularly
regarding post-training evaluation of impact, and a lack of further communication with
trainees regarding APRP news.
? In many programs, participants felt that the degree of homogeneity among participants was
inadequate.
19
 Agricultural Policy Reform Project
 Midterm Assessment: March 2000
? There is currently a high level of sustainability of WCU as a unit, partly due to the crucial
and effective technical assistance provided by APRP to specific policy implementation
activities.
? The new telemetry system has been fully installed and MWRI staff has been adequately
trained it its maintenance and operation. MSM, although it was a post-design attachment to
APRP, could have benefited from closer interaction with APRP. The APRP Steering
Committee and others may have been able to suggest policy reform or even new policies to
correct the problems that now exist in utilizing the new telemetry system.
? The management of MSM has not yet made the transition from the traditional delivery
system using anticipated cropping patterns and using water levels at the various control
locations on each Directorate irrigation system. The MSM manager may, however, be able to
begin volumetric control in limited areas after the pilot experience called for in Tranche IV.
? MFS has been institutionalized and is functioning effectively within MWRI. Although the
unit could benefit from further short-term technical assistance and training, MFS staff has
already been well-trained to take full responsibility for unit operation and management.
? WPAU and EPIQ have been effective in initiating water policy processes related to MWRI,
and have achieved significant policy change.
? Three of the five units in MWRI were attached to APRP mainly as a convenience for funding
of preexisting USAID projects. USAID financial support has now ended for MSM and
WCU, and financial support for MFS will end in mid-2000. The three units that have or will
have finished USAID financial support have been institutionalized into MWRI and will have
direct funding from the Ministry. APRP’s remaining two units in the MWRI, EPIQ and
20
 Agricultural Policy Reform Project
 Midterm Assessment: March 2000
WPAU, will continue to be funded until the latter part of 2002. Funding for the APRP units
in MWRI was adequate for the work planned and accomplished.
3.3 MONITORING AND EVALUATION
From a thorough review of the units’ terms of reference, monitoring and evaluation reports, and
other documentation, numerous interviews with key players, and participation in/observation of
monitoring and evaluation activities during the assessment period, the team finds that the
program’s monitoring and information systems produced sufficiently quantitative, accurate,
relevant, and timely data to satisfy the information needs of all major stakeholders. APRP
decision-makers have been adequately informed on possible impacts (to the extent possible at
this stage) and on implementation progress. The project's impact on farmers, agricultural
investment, and overall increases in agricultural productivity and farm incomes are being
documented by the units concerned, although more effort could usefully be applied to extending
the effective series of “success stories” being documented by RDI and EPIQ/WPAU.
The annual disbursement system has certainly lubricated the APRP policy process, and this is
where the PPC has been particularly effective. The short-term nature of the benchmark/tranche
cycle, and the potential penalties incurred by participants if benchmarks are not met, however,
have constrained the scope of the process. In addition, the disbursements themselves have not
generally been closely tied into supporting the Egyptian policy process, partly because
disbursements are slow to appear at Ministry and Department levels, and there is no serious
follow-up by the PPC or other main participants regarding direct use of the funds for policy
development or implementation. Although the disbursement system has provided an effective
engine to drive the APRP policy process (and this has possibly helped increase the efficiency of
21
 Agricultural Policy Reform Project
 Midterm Assessment: March 2000
the participating ministries), disbursements have not specifically offset the costs of implementing
reforms or directly contributed to increases in efficiency of the policy process. The conditionality
of disbursement, in itself, has provided incentives to keep the system rigorous, although it is less
clear if it is the major incentive for implementing policy reform.
Specific findings and conclusions included:
? MVE will use the baseline household survey originally carried out by IFPRI and farm
management data to assess the impact of policy reforms on overall employment and on other
parameters.
? Having monitoring and verification procedures well in hand, MVE is appropriately planning
to concentrate its future efforts on impact assessments and special studies, providing lessons
learned and guidance for future work in agricultural policy reform.
3.4 POLICY REFORM
From its extensive interviews with all major stakeholder/beneficiary groups in APRP and
Egyptian policy processes during the assessment period, and its thorough review of
documentation, the team finds that the overall design, operation, and impacts of the policy
reform element have been appropriate. The process of identifying policy objectives and
benchmarks, and of verifying progress, has not only been very satisfactory but will continue to
serve as a model for use in other sectors in Egypt and elsewhere.
22
 Agricultural Policy Reform Project
 Midterm Assessment: March 2000
The policy reform element has been well managed. The nature and levels of resources devoted to
monitoring already agreed-upon actions and designing future reforms have been appropriate.
Past negotiations and project monitoring have resulted in adequate initial commitment and
follow-up action by the key decision-makers, within the context of the benchmarks.
Although it would have been more productive if the PPC and the four key participating
ministries had taken a stronger and more leading role in the preliminary analysis and design of
future policy reforms, the levels of participation to date have been optimal given the constraints
under which the principal stakeholders were working. The APRP Policy Framework has been
appropriate as a general guide to benchmark development, continues to be used flexibly to meet
changing conditions, and has generally been used by and shared with key players.
The team finds that the expected nature and distribution of socioeconomic, political, and
institutional impacts of proposed reforms have generally been analyzed ex-ante, although there is
much more that could be done, and that the results have been used effectively to promote
specific policy changes.
The major impacts of policy reform are long-term and are difficult to assess in terms of
measurement and in terms of attribution to a specific policy or program. APRP will continue to
address this question, despite its resource limitations. Future APRP studies are likely to show
that the intended impacts on farmers and others will be achieved, although the true effects of
specific policy reforms on beneficiaries, and the effects of APRP’s strengthening of the Egyptian
policy process, will be felt only long after the program’s completion date.
23
 Agricultural Policy Reform Project
 Midterm Assessment: March 2000
Specific findings and conclusions included:
? Once additional Ministries become partners in the APRP policy process, they should be
rewarded by sharing in the tranche payments.
? There have been major accomplishments in agricultural policy reform as a result of the work
of APRP. Many of these have been due in large measure to APRP’s approach of creating
consensus on a particular policy reform and then taking the essential steps toward
implementation which make broad policies into realities improving the lives of individual
stakeholders.
? Privatization efforts have been so successful in rice milling that the subsector is now
dominated by private sector firms.
? Fisheries and aquaculture work should be pursued, as high potential payoff exists.
? RDI should reconsider its approach to water issues, especially to the “mismatch” issue, and
should forge even stronger linkages with EPIQ/WPAU through formal or informal APRP
channels. Gated-pipe technology appears too narrow a solution; perhaps a more general
water-saving policy is needed. Credit aspects to support water-saving technologies also need
to be followed up to make implementation on a grand scale possible.
? Possible lucrative areas for future emphasis include the fisheries and aquaculture field, tying
in with a water-quality benchmark for the northern lakes and perhaps another tackling issues
of first use of water.
? Impact assessments and special studies are particularly necessary before the end of APRP to
widely transmit the lessons learned, and to enhance the chance for replicating the actions in
24
 Agricultural Policy Reform Project
 Midterm Assessment: March 2000
other sectors and extending them further in agriculture. Given a possible trade-off between
more such studies and more implementation, it would appear that studies would be more
productive in terms of impact on future policy.
? APRP has analyzed many of the distributional impacts of proposed reforms and these studies
have been effective in promoting adoption of proposed reforms. These studies should be
more extensively diffused at local level, within interested ministries, and among private
sector stakeholders.
25
 Agricultural Policy Reform Project
 Midterm Assessment: March 2000
CHAPTER 4. RECOMMENDATIONS
The assessment team has discussed details of potential recommendations with APRP units and
their clients, and detailed background notes have been prepared and shared with the units
concerned. This chapter summarizes the main recommendations discussed. Recommendations
are directed towards USAID, the APRP units, GOE, and other stakeholders.
The current policy development, implementation, and evaluation efforts should continue with
relatively minor changes, given the excellent process infrastructure already established, and the
excellent outputs in terms of design and implementation of policies which have already been
achieved. Previous APRP successes provide a secure basis for expecting even greater
productivity in the future from existing programs.
The APRP should emphasize elements of sustainability, and of more ambitious policy reforms,
more than has been the case to date. Increased sustainability will help ensure that APRP’s gains
in terms of process and policies will endure to provide the intended impact, most of which will
be felt long after APRP ends. Broader policy reforms are now more feasible as a result of the
program’s success to date, and would considerably increase the program’s impact in the long
term, providing a more pervasive improved enabling environment.
More emphasis should be placed on the following areas of the existing program, where the work
of design and implementation needs to be accelerated prior to program termination: price policy
and privatization in the cotton industry, employment and gender as crosscutting issues, trade
26
 Agricultural Policy Reform Project
 Midterm Assessment: March 2000
issues, horticulture, costs of production and farm income data, transportation issues, taxation of
export commodities, land registration, and fisheries and aquaculture development.
MVE should carry out more extensive impact assessments and special studies in the remaining
months of the program, to provide the necessary guidance to future policy activities which the
rich harvest of the APRP program can provide. In this context, IFPRI’s household survey should
be repeated. Other studies should include the new lands, horticulture, and employment.
Additional staff economists in the areas of resource/production economics and water are
probably necessary in MVE, if this unit is to perform to its potential.
WPAU functions should be incorporated into MWRI by September 2001, to enable APRP to
support the policy process in the Ministry itself. Increased levels of daily working contact
between the junior-level WPAU staff and EPIQ TA advisors on practical policy-related matters
should be encouraged. For Tranche V, the unit should make a particular effort to integrate social
sciences into its policy studies, particularly at the earliest stages.
Management of the MSM telemetry system should be strengthened by dividing it into regional
subsystems, and through further outside assistance to effectively bring volumetric delivery into
operation, and to integrate the new system into MWRI management.
The MFS should become more closely associated with the telemetry operation of the Irrigation
Sector in MWRI, to facilitate the use of MFS information for improving the efficiency of
reservoir and downstream system management.
27
 Agricultural Policy Reform Project
 Midterm Assessment: March 2000
APRP could initiate a policy that would encourage greater openness and transparency between
units and collaborating ministries by, for example, initiating a policy that would not allow
deployment of improvement programs without a WCU component. As an illustration of this,
WCU could implement joint communications tasks with the MALR communications unit for
specific policy implementation campaigns (e.g., night watering). This would extend the present
inter-ministerial cooperation to the main bodies of staff, which has been slow to develop from
the initiative relatively recently provided by top management.
All policy reform measures implemented through APRP should be examined for their public
awareness needs, and public awareness programs should be implemented wherever feasible. For
example, there should be a policy within MWRI that all new programs that have impact on water
users, including the activities of directorate level and below irrigation engineer’s activities,
should be implemented with a water communications public awareness/education component,
designed from the outset as an integral part of the package.
The constraints placed on APRP for its hiring of higher-cost but highly productive Egyptian staff
should be reviewed.
APRP should further divest itself of specific implementation activities which need to be taken up
by implementing development agencies, sooner rather than later given the short period of time
remaining on APRP. This divestiture could be both rapid and effective in some cases due to the
excellent implementation-level linkages built up by APRP with partners such as GTZ.
28
 Agricultural Policy Reform Project
 Midterm Assessment: March 2000
Candidates for divestiture could include privatization of pest management service in cotton, and
the promotion of gated-pipe technology for water conservation.
APRP needs to find the means to broadly address important but highly controversial issues of
importance to agricultural policy reform that the most senior GOE officials feel need to be
addressed. For example, internationally known economists or other policy experts could
facilitate the analysis of specific issues without compromising either the government or USAID
with their views.
APRP should make arrangements to undertake “big picture” studies, and to work on issues
effecting agriculture but which are too controversial to cover as benchmarks. Some examples
could be the impact of changes in the exchange rate on agricultural trade, the comparative
advantage of changes in cropping patterns, constraints to improving water quality, and cost
sharing of water conveyance costs.
Some unearmarked funding should be reserved for use by RDI, MVE, and EPIQ/WPAU in
studying broad reform issues that may arise within the next two years.
The work of the PPC could be enhanced by adding several additional private sector
representatives who are able to make an effective contribution (e.g., private sector businessmen
with direct interests in APRP activities, preferably chairpersons of private-sector agribusiness
associations).
29
 Agricultural Policy Reform Project
 Midterm Assessment: March 2000
Both RDI and EPIQ/WPAU should apply more resources to the networking/consensus-building
“training” activities between key stakeholders (which have proved so effective), and to orient
these towards broader policy issues.
There should be increased participation of RDI and EPIQ/WPAU, and especially of MALR and
MWRI, in the design and implementation of training programs undertaken by IIE, to strengthen
targeting and evaluation of the programs.
Training priorities should include developing economics/policy and business management skills
of those key Ministry and private sector players who are most likely to sustain their reform
efforts in the long term.
Training programs in some areas such as gender issues should be designed as a collaborative
effort bringing the staff of the main implementing Ministries together on joint activities.
The excellent approaches to the policy process undertaken by RDI and EPIQ/WPAU are well
documented in terms of individual studies of the policies which they have assisted in changing,
but a more general documentation and study of these approaches would be useful to current and
future participants, as well as to the planning of similar endeavors elsewhere and in other sectors.
A1-1
 Agricultural Policy Reform Project
 Midterm Assessment: March 2000
ANNEX 1
AGRICULTURAL POLICY REFORM PROGRAM
(263-K-631 & 263-0219)
MIDTERM ASSESSMENT
Statement of Work
The Contractor shall be responsible for conducting a midterm assessment of Agricultural Policy
Reform Program (APRP). The contractor shall provide all resources except for logistics, which
shall be provided by the APRP/PMU.
A. ACTIVITY TO BE ASSESSED
Program Title: Agricultural Policy Reform Program, 
Technical Assistance for APR (263-0219) 
Policy Reform ProAg (263-K-631)
PACD: 9/30/2002
Period to Be Assessed: Project Authorization - September 1999
Program Goal and Purpose: The goal of the Agricultural Policy Reform Program (APRP) is to
increase production, productivity and incomes in the agricultural sector including agribusiness.
The purpose of APRP is to remove remaining policy barriers to private enterprise in agriculture,
thereby creating a liberal, competitive marketing system, and stimulating sustainable agricultural
growth. The APRP is a four-year grant program (1996-2000) with a budget of $245 million for
cash disbursement as Sector Program Assistance to participating GOE entities. The program is
designed to achieve policy reform in the following five key areas:
(1) prices, markets and trade;
(2) private investment and privatization in agribusiness;
(3) agricultural land and water resource investment utilization and sustainability;
(4) agricultural sector support services; and
(5) food security and poverty alleviation.
Annual cash disbursements are made to the GOE upon completion of policy reform benchmarks,
as established and agreed to through annual memoranda of understanding signed by both the
GOE and USAID/Egypt. Policy Reform measures contribute directly to the Mission's Strategic
Objective 1, "Private Sector-Led, Export-Oriented Economic Growth".
USAID is also assisting the GOE to make needed policy changes with a $50 million grant for the
Technical Assistance for Agricultural Policy Reform Project. This project provides assistance
through nine separate projectized activities, four of which are officed in the Ministry of
Agriculture and Land Reclamation (MALR). The remaining five activities are co-located with
the Ministry of Public Works and Water Resources (MPWWR). There are other ministries
A1-2
 Agricultural Policy Reform Project
 Midterm Assessment: March 2000
involved in the implementation of the APRP such as Ministry of Trade and Supply (MoTS),
Ministry of Public Enterprises (MPE), and Ministry of International Cooperation (MIC). The
nine activities, also referred to as units, are described below, in Annex 1.
B. PURPOSE OF THE ASSESSMENT
The primary purpose of the assessment is to review the progress made in the program assistance
and the technical assistance elements of APRP since project authorization to assess performance
of management structures, sustainability, monitoring and evaluation, and policy reform elements
of the program. In addition, the assessment will include a review to determine whether any
redirection is required for APRP. The assessment is intended to be useful to MALR, MPWWR,
MPE, MoTS, USAID staff, TA Contractors, and GOE officials.
The assessment will draw upon interviews, site visits, and analysis of information collected by
existing project monitoring, evaluation and survey systems.
C. BACKGROUND AND APRP STRUCTURE
APRP is an important element in USAID's support to economic reform in Egypt. The program
began in FY 1995 as an amplification and follow-on to the successful Agricultural Production
and Credit Project (APCP, USAID-263-0202). Project amendments have increased life of project
funding to $245 million for cash disbursement as Sector Program Assistance and $50 million for
the technical assistance with the PACD of 6/30/2000.
The program consists of two main elements: The agricultural Sector Program Assistance element
and the technical assistance element to support implementation of the needed policy reform. The
Sector Program Assistance element of the APRP, which helps offset the costs of major
government policy changes, is expected to disburse $245 million to the GOE by the 2000 PACD.
A total of $154 million has already been disbursed in three separate tranches: 1997/98 ($44
million out of planned $50 million); 1998 ($57 million out of planned $65 million); and 1999
($53 million out of planned $65 million). The remaining $65 million and the non-disbursed
amounts will be disbursed in subsequent Tranches, pending the GOE meeting the policy
benchmarks included under the Memoranda of Understanding. The GOE was able to achieve
benchmarks related to cotton marketing and pricing, fertilizer distribution, trade and tariff policy,
seed liberalization, private trade associations, land reclamation and land tenure, water user
associations, water rationalization and water policy, MALR institutions, privatization of farm
input supply activities, and privatization of textile and wheat and rice mills, and other important
policy measures in the five APRP policy areas.
APRP is directed by the MALR and is implemented by a Program Planning Committee (PPC).
The Minister of Agriculture chairs an informal Ministerial Committee comprised of himself, the
Ministers of Public Works and Water Resources (MPWWR), Trade and Supply (MoTS), and
Public Enterprises (MPE). The three Ministries, in addition to the MALR, are the most directly
concerned with APRP objectives.
A1-3
 Agricultural Policy Reform Project
 Midterm Assessment: March 2000
The PPC is comprised of representatives of the MALR, the MPWWR, the MoTS, and the MPE;
a Program Coordinator of the PPC; representatives of the private sector; and other members
representing USAID and the Ministries of Economy, and International Cooperation. Each
Ministry has one representative, with the exception of the MALR, which has two. The Program
Coordinator and USAID representatives are ex-officio members.
The PPC is chaired by a representative from the MALR and includes a Program Management
Unit (PMU) to carry out operational, administrative, and financial tasks associated with APRP.
The key member of the PMU is the Program Coordinator who works on a full-time basis and
takes direction from the PPC to ensure achievement of its objectives. As the reform program
proposed for APRP is technically complex, eight other technical assistance units exist in addition
to the PMU to carry out: a) monitoring, verification and evaluation of policy reforms; b)
assistance with the design and implementation of reforms including water policy reforms; and c)
medium- to long-term research on food security. The PPC provides overall guidance to these
technical assistance units. This is accomplished through the Program Coordinator. The specific
tasks and responsibilities of the nine Units are stated in Annex 1.
Some of the nine units works closely with Task Forces. The objectives of the Task Forces are:
(1) to further the development of free markets for agricultural and related sectors; (2) to privatize
public enterprises providing inputs to agriculture and marketing or processing agricultural
outputs, and to encourage private sector investment in these areas; (3) to provide food security in
a carefully targeted, non-wasteful fashion to the needy; (4) to develop the capacity of institutions
to manage water resources more efficiently, to establish effective agricultural market information
services, and to improve agricultural research and extension; and (5) to achieve an improved
irrigation and water management system. The original design of the Task Forces was altered
during the path of implementing APRP and was replaced by Working Groups pertaining to
specific policy benchmarks.
D. STATEMENT OF WORK
The contractor shall review and provide guidance for implementation related to the following
key concerns:
1. How adequate and effective have the APRP organizational and management
structures been in supporting implementation to achieve the project goal and
purpose and produce outputs and outcomes?
Have the planning, programming and budget processes been adequate to ensure that consultants,
and participants are being properly and effectively utilized? Have the PMU and the program
coordinator effectively utilized the PPC members? Have the TA teams and their home offices
provided adequate intellectual leadership and implementation support? Have the development
resources, project management assistance, and guidance provided by USAID been appropriate
and sufficient? Has PPC, and Task forces staffing been adequate? Has the PPC policy and
decision-making process been strengthened? Have linkages been developed to senior decision￾makers inter- and intra- participating ministries? Has coordination and integration between
A1-4
 Agricultural Policy Reform Project
 Midterm Assessment: March 2000
APRP and other USAID projects and other donors who have responsibility for policy reform
been productive and timely?
The team shall:
a. Determine whether the overall management, organization, focus and implementation
progress to date has been appropriate, coordinated, and functioning to achieve project
objectives by PACD.
b. Make specific recommendations for improvements, if and where warranted.
2. Have technical assistance contractors effectively designed and implemented Policy
Reform Design, Implementation, Monitoring, Verification, and Evaluation of
Reforms, Training, and Program Support Services to enhance MALR, MPWWR,
MoTS and other participating ministries' involvement and decision-making process
in the policy reform program?
Have the reform design and implementation, the monitoring/ verification process, and the
evaluation/impact assessment process been successful to date? What are the prospects for
institutionalizing a formalized policy reform planning process within the participating ministries
by the PACD?
The team shall:
a. Review specific project implementation activities, comparing actual progress to workplan
goals and best practice in policy reform programs to determine whether: implementation
progress has been satisfactory; the professional training (in-service and participant) has
been timely and relevant; needs and constraints of beneficiary groups, including women,
have been adequately addressed; the implementation process has resulted in
institutionalization of improved systems and procedures to design, implement, and
monitor needed policy reform; participation by PPC members, and other GOE officials
has been sufficient to ensure that systems will be sustained after program completion.
b. Examine the APRP/RDI training plans to determine and assess whether they have been
clearly based on institutional needs, program goals and objectives, and that they satisfy
the requirements of ADS 253 and related Mission Orders.
c. Make specific recommendations for improvement and areas for emphasis during the
project extension, if and where warranted.
3. Are there aspects of the monitoring and evaluation activities which could be
modified to improve their effectiveness?
Have the project's monitoring and information systems produced sufficiently quantitative,
accurate, relevant, and timely data to satisfy the information needs of PPC and APRP
Management, TA contractors, and USAID project management? Are decision-makers adequately
A1-5
 Agricultural Policy Reform Project
 Midterm Assessment: March 2000
informed regarding program impact and MALR, MPWWR and other participating ministries
functions, reporting, and implementation progress?
The team shall:
a. Using existing work completed by the project, summarize the project's impact on
farmers, agricultural investment, and overall increase in agricultural productivity and
farm incomes.
b. Review how much of the budget increase of the four key ministries (MALR, MPWWR,
MoTS, MPE) is attributable to annual performance disbursements over the LOP.
Evaluate whether annual performance disbursements have increased efficiency of the
ministries and effectively offset the costs of implementing reforms.
c. Review and analyze the design, operation and impacts of the monitoring and evaluation
element and, if warranted, make recommendations for modification. Make specific
recommendations for enhancing the quality and usefulness of ex-ante and ex-post impact
evaluation activities, where warranted.
4. Are there aspects of the design and operation of the policy reform program elements
which could be modified to improve their effectiveness?
Has conditionality of disbursement provided a sufficient incentive for policy reform? Are there
ways performance might be improved? Has the process of identifying policy objectives and
benchmarks and verifying progress been satisfactory? Have past negotiations and project
monitoring resulted in adequate initial commitment and/or follow-up action by the key decision￾makers? Has the mix and amount of resources devoted to monitoring already agreed-upon
actions and designing future reforms been appropriate? Would it be advisable for the PPC and
the four key participating ministries (MALR, MPWWR, MOTS, MPE) to take a stronger and
more leading role in the preliminary analysis and design of future policy reforms? Have the
expected nature and distribution of socioeconomic, political, and institutional impacts of
proposed reforms been adequately analyzed ex-ante and have the results of these analytical
studies been used effectively to promote policy changes? Is this policy reform model likely to be
adaptable for use in other sectors in Egypt or other AID-assisted countries? Has the APRP Policy
Framework been utilized and shared with key players? Has APRP Policy Framework been
adjusted, modified, or changed appropriately to meet the dynamic nature of the APRP?
The team shall:
a. Review and analyze the design, operation and impacts of the policy reform element and,
if warranted, make recommendations for modification.
b. Make recommendations regarding the applicability of this performance-based
disbursement model, or adaptations of it, to other sectors in Egypt or to other AID￾assisted countries.
A1-6
 Agricultural Policy Reform Project
 Midterm Assessment: March 2000
c. Assess the likelihood that desired policy reform impacts will be achieved by PACD.
E. TEAM COMPOSITION
The midterm assessment shall take about 6 weeks and the team shall include:
1. Policy Program Specialist/Agricultural Economist (6 weeks): The Policy Program
Specialist/Agricultural Economist shall be designated team leader with full responsibility
for developing all required deliverables. This team member shall have had overseas
experience in the implementation and analysis of policy reform projects. S/he shall have
had experience in the development and operations of conditionality based cash
disbursement policy reform programs and in the economic analysis of their impacts.
2. Senior Institutional/Management Specialist (6 weeks): This team member shall have had
experience with agricultural development projects, privatization of agribusinesses, and/or
rural associations/institutions in developing countries. S/he shall have had broad
experience in and knowledge of standard developmental project operations and
procedures. These include, but shall not be limited to, project management structure,
human resource development, and development assistance program monitoring systems.
Private sector experience and knowledge of USAID would be a plus.
3. Resource Economist (4 weeks): This team member shall have had experience with
agricultural natural resources, water economics, environmental aspects of policy reform,
and related areas. S/he shall have had broad experience in and knowledge of agricultural
policy reform programs and understanding of institutional economics.
4. Two local specialists (6 weeks each): These members will act as co-team for the Policy
Program Specialist/Agricultural Economist expatriate and the Institutional/Management
Specialist expatriate, respectively. The main tasks of these specialists, who shall work
under the supervision of the team leader, will be drafting appropriate sections of the final
report, and to ensure the team is getting access to data, information and staff.
F. METHODS AND PROCEDURES
1. The team shall base their findings, conclusions, and recommendations on data,
documents, and other information provided by the TA contractors, USAID project
officers, USAID economics office, PPC members, private sector, and participating
ministries (MALR, MPWWR, MPE, MoTS, MIC) as well as site visits and interviews.
Documents consulted should include, but not be limited to, the project paper (PP) and the
Program Assistance Document (PAAD), and its amendment, the project's annual
workplans and quarterly reports, records, studies, the APRP Policy Framework, USAID
and APRP analyses in support of proposed policy reforms, relevant Memoranda of
Understanding, performance disbursement annual verification reports for Tranches I, II,
and III, and past implementation and project-related reforms, and other documentation as
requested and as deemed relevant.
A1-7
 Agricultural Policy Reform Project
 Midterm Assessment: March 2000
2. The assessment team shall review project documentation and studies conducted (e.g., by
the RDI, EPIQ and the MVE Units).
3. The assessment team shall interview appropriate USAID, TA Contractors, PPC,
MPWWR, MPE, MoTS, and MALR staff.
4. The team shall conduct site visits to some governorates.
5. The team shall prepare a final report providing findings, conclusions and
recommendations responsive to the questions in the Statement of Work above, based on
the analysis of information obtained as stated under Section E. above.
G. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AND DELIVERABLES 
All reports shall be submitted to USAID/EG/AP and the PPC.
1. The contractor shall hold regular meetings, the frequency of which will be agreed to with
USAID, to brief the PPC and USAID staff on progress. Final debriefing(s) shall be held
for USAID, PPC, and TA contractors after submission of the draft report.
2. On or before the fifth working day, the contractor shall submit a workplan, which
describes roles and responsibilities of each team member and includes a detailed outline
and suggested table of contents for the midterm assessment report.
3. The contractor shall submit a draft report during or before the end of the sixth working
week. The draft findings shall be reviewed and discussed with key PPC, USAID and TA
contractors' field staff during or before the end of the sixth working week. Comments on
the draft report will be provided to the contractor within two calendar weeks after the
departure of the team. The team leader will be authorized up to four working days to
finalize the report in the U.S. The final report for reproduction, to be delivered within two
additional calendar weeks, shall include changes or revisions requested by USAID and
PPC members. The contractor shall provide 25 copies of the final report.
4. The proposed format for the midterm assessment report, to be provided in English,
should be as follows:
Executive Summary: Not to exceed three single-spaced pages.
Listing of the Major Conclusions and Recommendations: This section should briefly
summarize the most important conclusions and recommendations in the assessment.
Main Report: The report should respond directly to the key questions in the Statement of
work and should not exceed 30 double spaced typed pages.
A1-8
 Agricultural Policy Reform Project
 Midterm Assessment: March 2000
Annex 1- APRP Units and Contractors
The APRP includes nine units and contractors as follows:
1) Program Management Unit (PMU): As AID Direct contract with Datex, Inc., the PMU
provides the overall coordination and technical services to ensure synergy among all APRP units.
PMU also provides key operational, administrative, and financial management support required
to carry out APRP. This unit is the main link with the Program Planning Committee (PPC),
which oversees APRP activities, with the APRP Project Director, Dr. Saad Nassar, and with
USAID/Egypt's Agricultural Policy Division.
2) Monitoring, Verification & Evaluation Unit (MVE): The primary objective of the
MVE unit is to monitor, verify and evaluate GOE performance in meeting the policy benchmarks
agreed to in the annual memoranda of understanding (MOU). The MVE unit also provides input
to the formulation of policy benchmarks and to the development and implementation of local
currency funded projects. The contractor, Abt Associates, provides policy impact analyses and
studies, and evaluates projectized activities developed and implemented under APRP. MVE
develops and reviews the indicators for monitoring benchmark progress, conducts studies and
analyses to verify benchmark achievement, and reports the results.
In addition to benchmark verification, the MVE unit is also responsible for evaluating the impact
of policy reforms made under APRP in terms of on-farm production, private agricultural
marketing, and private agro-industrial output. The MVE unit produces evaluation studies, which
measure policy reform impacts on farmer income and productivity and consumer income and
expenditures.
3) Reform Design and Implementation Unit (RDI): The contractor is Development
Alternatives Inc., (DAI). The primary objective of the RDI unit is to provide guidance on
removing remaining barriers to private enterprise development in agriculture, thereby creating a
liberal, competitive marketing system, and stimulating sustainable agricultural growth.
The RDI unit takes the lead in policy benchmark formulation and the development of local
currency funded projects. RDI is sometimes called on for recommendations regarding the use of
the local currency generated from the sales of U.S. source/origin commodities. For example, it
has examined early retirement programs to reduce labor redundancy in selected state-owned
companies involved in cotton textile manufacturing and rice and wheat milling.
By closely monitoring the policy arena, RDI ensures that its technical assistance focuses on
viable policy alternatives and implementable reform activities. The unit collaborates and
coordinates closely with the MVE unit to develop verifiable policy benchmarks and to monitor
APRP reform activities.
4) Food Security Research (FSR): The FSR program collaborates with several key
ministries to determine the possible impacts ongoing reforms may have on the food security of
Egyptians, with a particular focus on impacts among the poorer segments of society. The
expected benefits of FSR research include: (1) identification of alternatives for a more cost-
A1-9
 Agricultural Policy Reform Project
 Midterm Assessment: March 2000
effective social safety net; (2) design of a more cost-effective system of food subsidies; (3)
recommendations for pilot-testing new food subsidy system(s); and, (4) generation of meaningful
indicators for tracking food insecurity during the course of economic adjustment. This is a grant
to IFPRI.
5) Water Policy Reform Assistance (EPIQ): The objective of this technical assistance unit
is to assist the Ministry of Public Works and Water Resources (MPWWR) to identify and carry
out policy reforms which will increase the global efficiency and productivity of Egypt's Nile
Water System. Component activities are aimed at addressing such issues as: (1) improved water
conservation, allocation and distribution; (2) workable cost recovery/cost sharing measures; (3)
increased user involvement in system operation and maintenance; and, (4) improved protection
of Nile River water quality. The TA team directly assists in identifying and achieving annual
policy reform benchmarks, working closely with the MPWWR Steering Committee, Water
Policy Advisory Unit (WPAU), and other key ministry officials. The Water Policy Reform
Activity Contractor is International Resources Group, Ltd. (IRG)/Winrock International (WI).
6) Water Policy Advisory Unit (WPAU): The purpose of this unit, created in 1996, is to
assist the policy reform effort through strategy review and policy recommendations. WPAU also
serves as a decision support unit for the Minister's office. In effect, the unit is the GOE
counterpart of the Water Policy Reform Activity team, and is designed to incorporate a
multidisciplinary working group of experts to directly support the policy reform process within
the MPWWR. The unit participates directly in the benchmark identification, review, and
approval process, and contributes to the implementation of effective policy reform measures.
WPAU leadership intercedes with the Minister's office and the MPWWR Steering Committee on
behalf of all USAID-sponsored APRP activities. It is funded through a local-currency PIL.
7) Water Education & Communication Activity: This activity is carried out through
GreenCom, a USAID/W global project. The technical assistance provided through this activity in
Egypt is to work directly with the Water Communications Unit of the MPWWR to accomplish
several tasks in support of overall policy reform in the water sector. One objective is to raise
general public awareness about water availability and scarcity in Egypt and to enhance
awareness of conservation requirements for the future. Another is to promote and build improved
levels of communication between water users and MPWWR field staff and increase farmer
participation in water user associations. Creating and conducting education programs and similar
initiatives to support behavioral change related to water use, conservation, and management are
also envisioned. The contractor is Academy for Educational Development (AED).
8) Main Systems Management II (MSM): This activity is implemented by the Planning
Sector of the Ministry of Public Works and Water Resources MPWWR) and is a continuation of
an activity, which began, in late 1988 under a former USAID project. Currently, MSM is carried
out under a technical assistance contract with two main objectives:
1. Improve operation of the Nile irrigation system by installing and fully unitizing telemetry
data to manage water distribution;
A1-10
 Agricultural Policy Reform Project
 Midterm Assessment: March 2000
2. Improve the efficiency of telemetry system operation and maintenance to ensure program
sustainability.
An additional benefit from this activity is that MSM can provide accurate data useful for
calculating irrigation system efficiency, identifying areas of resource misuse, matching
alternative supplies with areas of need, or planning system operation modifications to ensure
improved delivery. The contractor is HARZA Engineering.
A2-1
 Agricultural Policy Reform Project
 Midterm Assessment: March 2000
ANNEX 2
LIST OF CONTACTS
More than two hundred stakeholders and beneficiaries of APRP were contacted, including:
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
NAME TITLE /INSTITUTION E-MAIL OFFICE TEL.
&
MOBILE PHONE
Dr. Thomas M. Olson Chief, Agricultural
Policy Division
Economic Growth
Office
tolson@usaid.gov 516-5505
Ext. 3207
Dr. Craig Anderson Agricultural
Development Officer
Canderson@usaid.gov 516-5505 Ext.
2138 012-322-
4649
Mr. Lyn Dunn Commodity
Management Officer
idunn@usaid.gov 516-5505
Ext. 3242
Mr. Ali Kamel Senior Project
Management
Specialist
akamel@usaid.gov 516-5505
Ext. 3210
012 214 1170
Mr. Hatem El Khodary Financial Management
Ms. Gladys Larkham Project
Management Assistant
Glarkham@usaid.gov 516-5505
Ext. 2140
Mr. Mahmoud A.
Mabrouk
Water Resources
Specialist
mmabrouk@usaid.gov
mmabrouk@hotmail.com
516-5505
Ext. 2083
Dr. Wadie Fahim
Mankarious
Water Resources
Policy Specialist
wafahim@usaid.gov 516-5505
Ext. 2086
Dr. Mohamed A. Sherif
Omran Senior Agricultural
Economist
momran@intouch.com
momran@usaid.gov
516-5505
012 219 6231
Dr. Glenn Rogers Agricultural
Economics Officer
grogers@usaid.gov 516-5505
Ext. 2136
A2-2
 Agricultural Policy Reform Project
 Midterm Assessment: March 2000
PPC/PMU
NAME TITLE /INSTITUTION E-MAIL OFFICE TEL.
&
MOBILE PHONE
Dr. Saad Nassar Director, Agricultural
Research Center, and
Director of APRP
Dr. Hamdy Salem Director, Egyptian Export
Promotion Center and
Advisor to the Minister of
Trade and Supply
Eng. Gamil Mahmoud Head, WPAU
Mr. Hamed El-Shiety Chairman, Shoura CO.
Dr. Adel Beshai Senator, People’s
Assembly, and Head of
Economics Department,
AUC
Dr. Randall Parks Chief of Party
PMU UNIT
rparks@agpolicy.com 3499279
3375727
0122178176
Eng. Mahmoud Nour Program Coordinator
PMU UNIT
abla@agpolicy.com 3499279
3375727
Mr. George Kondos Program Administrator
PMU UNIT
3358879
MVE
Dr. Gary Ender Chief of Party
MVE UNIT
gender@agpolicy.com 3358869
3370357
3370592
Dr. John S. Holtzman Agribusiness Advisor
MVE UNIT
Holtzman@agpolicy.com 3370482
3370605
Dr. Ronald D. Krenz Agricultural Production
Economist/MVE UNIT
3370357
3370592
Dr. Adel Mohamed
Moustafa
Economic Consultant
MVE UNIT
Amostafa@agpolicy.com 3370357
3370592
Dr. Morsy Fawzy Agribusiness Policy
Analyst
MVE UNIT
3370357
3370592
Ms. Asmaa El
Ganainy
Research Assistance
MVE UNIT
3370482
3370605
Ms. Yvonne Louis
Azer
Administrative Assistant
MVE UNIT
yazer@agpolicy.com 3370357
3370592
Dr. John W. Mellor Vice President
Abt Associates Inc.
USA
John_mellor@abtassoc.com 301 347 5365
A2-3
 Agricultural Policy Reform Project
 Midterm Assessment: March 2000
RDI
NAME TITLE /INSTITUTION E-MAIL OFFICE TEL.
&
MOBILE
PHONE
Dr. Max Goldensohn Chief of Party
RDI UNIT
MD Goldensohn@dai.com 3370465
3375712
Mr. Abdel Shakur
Zahran
Executive Manager
RDI UNIT
Shakur_Zahran@dai.com 3375712
3370473
Dr. Amr A. Moussa Organizational
Development Consultant
RDI UNIT
Amr_Moussa@dai.com 3375712
3370473
Dr. Steven Joyce Public Awareness
RDI UNIT
Steve_Joyce@dai.com 3375709
3375712
Dr. Kenneth Swanberg Agricultural Investment
Specialist
RDI INIT
Kenneth_Swanberg@dai.com 3375709
3375712
Dr. Edgar Ariza-Nino Agribusiness / Marketing
Specialist
RDI INIT
Edgar_ArizaNino/APRP/DAI
@dai.com
3356081
3375712
Dr. Jane Gleason Resources Economist
RDI UNIT
JE_GLEASON@DAI.com 3375709
3375712
Dr. Lamia El-Fattal Policy Analyst
RDI UNIT
Lamia_El-Fattal@dai.com
lamia@intouch.com
3375712
012 224 3119
Dr. Lawrence Kent Economist
RDI UNIT
Lawrence_Kent@dai.com 3375712
3370473
Dr. Richard Magnani Agribusiness Policy
Specialist
RDI UNIT
Richard_Magnani@dai.com 3370473
3375712
Eng. Ayad Thebat RDI Branch Manger
Luxor
095372064
Mr. Mahmoud Kamel Luxor
Ms. Amira Nabih
Badawi
Conference Interpreter 3605997
0123510334
A2-4
 Agricultural Policy Reform Project
 Midterm Assessment: March 2000
Water Policy Units
NAME TITLE /INSTITUTION E-MAIL OFFICE TEL.
&
MOBILE PHONE
Eng. Gamil Mahmoud Head, WPAU WPAU@intouch.com 3128407
3120043
3113337
Dr. Jeffrey W.
Fredericks
Chief of Party
EPIQ
Jfred@gega.net 3154440-
3154400
012 212 2884
Dr. Zhongping Zhu Senior Water Resources
Engineer
EPIQ
Zzhu@gega,net 3154440-
3154400
Dr. Ahmed F.Khattab Co Team Leader
EPIQ
Epiqcop@gega.net
Dr. Ibrahim Elassiouty W.R.Management
Specialist
EPIQ
Wrrp@gega.net 3154440-
3154400
Mr. Gregory Olson Project Administrator
EPIQ
Golson@gega.net 012 212 9949
Dr. Elsayed Mahdy Resource Economist
EPIQ
Wrrp@gega.net 3154440-
3154400
Dr. Robert Cardinalli Senior Sociologist
EPIQ
Rjc@gega.net 3154440-
3154400
Dr. Ragab Abdel
Azim
Irrigation Engineer
EPIQ
Razim@gege.net 3154440-
3154400
Eng. Sarwat H. Fahmy Consultant – Water Policy
AdvisoryUnit
MPWWR/USAID
3109588
3120043
3113337
Mr. Hussein Said
Elwan
Civil Engineer – Under
Secretary
MPWWR, Cairo
3123879
3123917
Dr. Hesham Mostafa Director of WCU Mpwwr@idsc.gov.eg 3123803
3123891
Eng. Soliman
M.Abou-Zeid
Project Director
MPWWR
3127074
3127079
Dr. Hesham Mostafa Director of WCU mpwwr@idsc.gov.eg 3123803
3123891
John Woods Project Supervisor,
GreenCOM III
jwoods@chemonics.com 524 7230
Cheryl Groff Chief of Party –
GreenCOM III
cgroff@ie-eg.com 3508166
012 224 2908
Dr. John E. Keith Professor-Resource and
Environmental Economics
Utah State University
Jonekeith@aol.com
Jkeith2b202.usu.edu
435 713 4101
Dr. Larry G. King King@turbonet.com 509 3327457
A2-5
 Agricultural Policy Reform Project
 Midterm Assessment: March 2000
Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
NAME TITLE /INSTITUTION E-MAIL OFFICE TEL.
&
MOBILE
PHONE
Mr. Ibrahim Ali Abul
Zahab
Program Officer Ibrahim.Abulzahab@fao.org
www.fao.org
3316000
3316019
Mr. Maurice Saade Regional Policy Officer Maurice.Saade@field.fao.org 3316030
3316000
3372229
Dr. Jozef J. Roskar Senior FAO Expert
MPWWR
MFS UNIT
faomfs@intouch.com 3128385
Mr. Nadir Doumandji FAO Representative in
Egypt
Nadir.Doumandji@fao.org
www.fao.org
7602324
3316000
GTZ
Dr. Heinz Burgstaller Team Leader
GTZ UNIT
Cspp@idsc.gov.eg
cspp@dns.claes.sci.eg
3365416
3365417
Dr. Helmut Schon Agricultural Economist
GTZ UNIT
Hschoen@agpolicy.com
cspp@brainy1.ie.eg.com
3365416
3365417
3370498
Mr. Mohamed Abo EL
Wafa
Agricultural Economic
Expert
GTZ UNIT
Mohelwafa@hotmail.com 3370498
3365417
Mr. Anthony J. Treen IPM Specialist
GTZ UNIT
Cspp@idsc.gov.eg
cspp@brainy1.ie.eg.com
3365416
3365417
Egyptian Seed Association (ESAS)
Dr. Samir El-Naggar Chairperson
Egyptian Seed
Association
ESAS
esasegypt@email.com
www.esasegypt.org
3499178
Eng. Sherif EL￾Kardany
Deputy General Manager
Egyptian Seed
Association
ESAS
esasegypt@email.com
www.esasegypt.org
3499178
Hisham M. Enaba Financial Manager
Egyptian Seed
Association
ESAS
esasegypt@email.com
www.esasegypt.org
3499178
A2-6
 Agricultural Policy Reform Project
 Midterm Assessment: March 2000
Other Ministry and Private Sector Staff
NAME TITLE /INSTITUTION E-MAIL OFFICE TEL.
&
MOBILE
PHONE
Mr. Mohamed EL
Shahad
First Undersecretary
Head Economic Affairs
Sector
MALR
SEA@idsc.gov.eg 3607719
3373203
Eng. Mohamed
Mohamed Khalil
Undersecretary for
Agriculture Ministry
Kafr AL-Sheikh
232752
232411
226086
Mr. Magdi Abdel
Samad
Deputy Director General
Egyptian International
Centre for Agriculture
3372208
Dr. Usama Ahmed
EL-Behary
Head of Soil-less Culture
Dept.
Central Laboratory for
Agricultural Climate
rubhairy@rusys.eg.net 4441386
Dr. Osama Khier El
Din
Chairman
Agricultural Commodities
Council
ACC
2753500
2753700
Dr. Ahmed O.EL￾Kholaeai
C21 National Unit
Coordinator
The National
Environmental Action
Plan ( NEAP )
aelkholei@neap.com.eg
www.neap.com.eg
5264571
Chem. Ragaa Gouda
Youssef
Director of Waste Water
Control Dept.
Ministry of Health &
Population
ragaag@yahoo.com 3546719
0123163030
General. Assem
Shams Eldin Adel
Hafez
Chief of Stock Portfolio
Sector – MPE
Textile Manufacturing
&Trading Holding Co.,
3954796
Dr. Ali A. Solieman First Undersecretary
Ministry of International
Cooperation
micaacs2@idsc1.gov.eg 5913370
5922142
Eng. Hamed Ahmed
Al-Shiaty
Chairman
SHOURA Chemicals
Private Sector Rep.
PPC
Shoura@thewayout.net 5702010
5712156
Eng. Mostafa Kamel
Abo Kresha
Super Director of
Irrigation of Qena Public
Irrigation
Mr. El Sayed Wahba
El Sayed
2
nd Director of Irrigation
for Qena
A2-7
 Agricultural Policy Reform Project
 Midterm Assessment: March 2000
NAME TITLE /INSTITUTION E-MAIL OFFICE TEL.
&
MOBILE
PHONE
Mr. Mohamed Osman International Labour
Organization ILO –
9 Taha Hussein St.
Zamalek
3419290
3400123
Mr. Amr M. EL
Tonsey
Executive Director
Horticultural Export
Improvement Association
HEIA
Heia@internetegypt.com 3383080
Dr. Hamdy Salem Executive Director
Egyptian Export
Promotion Center EEPC
Ministry of Economic
&Foreign Trade
Dr. Samir El-Naggar Chairman — Daltex 3050505
Mr. Nabil Marsfawy Chairman of Cotton and
Int’l Trade Co.,
Mahmoud Houdini Egyptian Export
Promotion Center
EEPC
Mr. Said Mahmoud
Haggag
Chairman and MD
Alcotan Cotton Trading
and Export Co.,
4830798
4837778
Mr. Mamdouh Sayed
Abdel Sattar
Chairman Eastern Cotton
Co., Alex
03/4920002
Mr. Bahaa El Sherif Chairman El Wadi
Trading and Cotton
Ginning Company
03/4911143
03/4336106
Mr. Adel Beshai Prof. Econ. At Amn Shura
Council member
3576784
Mr. Said Malleh Second Man at Creation
of IFAD
Mr. Magdi Madkour Director of Ag. Genetic
Engineering Research
Institute
Mr. Hany El Habibi Chief Executive Officer
Sahara Group
( Egyptex 2000 )
Sahara@intouch.com 3039382
Eng. Ramsis Bakhoum Head of Irrigation
Improvement Sector
MPWWR – IIP
iip@idsc.gov.eg 4444513
4442802
Dr. Ahmed M. Ali President
Egyptian Society for
Water Environment
Affairs ( Ex- APRP Water
Consultant – Training )
aliam_2000@hotmail.com 2668376
012 215 5171
A3-1
 Agricultural Policy Reform Project
 Midterm Assessment: March 2000
ANNEX 3
BIBLIOGRAPHY
The assessment team reviewed more than one hundred documents related to APRP, including the
APRP Project Paper and related documents at USAID; the Terms of Reference, work plans,
progress reports of APRP units, and APRP technical reports. A partial listing of documents
reviewed is presented below.
? APRP, MALR, The Economics Affairs Sector, Study on Cost of Production and Farm
Income Data for the 1997-1998 Agricultural Season, Volume I&Volume II, December
1999.
? APRP, EPIQ, APRP Water Policy: Tranche IV Benchmark Work Plan, Report No. 24,
November 1999.
? APRP,RDI Unit, Quarterly Report ( QRs II & III April 1997 – September 1997), Report
No. 17, October 1997.
? APRP, RDI Unit, Quarterly Report (QR IV October 1997 – December 1997) & Annual
Report 1997, Report No. 29, January 1998.
? APRP, RDI Unit, Quarterly Report ( QR V January 1998 – March 1998 ), Report No. 35,
April 1998.
? APRP, RDI Unit, RDI Quarterly Report ( QR VII July 1998 – September 1998), Report
No. 60, October 1998.
? APRP, RDI Unit, Quarterly Report No. 1 (November 1996 – March 1997), Report No. 7,
May 1997.
? APRP, MVE Unit, Tom Zalla: (Team Leader ), Stephan Goetz, John Holtzman, Robert
Young, Abdel-Hamid Youssef Saad, Morsy Aly Fawzy and Abdel Rahim Ismail, Plan
For Assessing the Impact of Egypt’s APRP, Impact Assessment:Report No. 1, March
1998.
? APRP, MVE Unit, Abdel-Hamid Youssef Saad and Abdel Rahman Taryal, Fertilizer
Pricing & Distribution in Egypt, Verification: Report No. 1, October 1997.
? APRP, MVE Unit, Rashad El-Saadany, Azza Emara and John S. Holtzman, Tariff and
Non-Tariff Barriers on Exports and Imports of Cotton Products, Verification: Report No.
2, October 1997.
? APRP, MVE Unit, Ismael S. Ouedraogo and Abdel-Rahim Ismail, Progress and
Obstacles In Rice Sector Liberalization in Egypt: A Rapid Appraisal to Verify Policy
Benchmarks, Verification: Report No.4, October 1997.
? APRP, MVE Unit, M. Abdel Sadek El Santrecy, Reforms to the System of Cotton Pest
Control in Egypt, Under APRP, Verification: Report No. 3, October 1997.
? APRP, MVE Unit, Douglas Daniell, Verification of Policy Benchmarks: Lessons
Learned From Tranche 1 of APRP, Verification: Report No. 5, October 1997.
? APRP, MVE Unit, Morsy Aly Fawzy, Ahmed Qadery M. Bahloul, Mohamed A. Meselhi,
Mohamed Sayed Saeed and Usama Ahmed EL Bahnasawi, Producer Survey Results,
APRP: Tranche 1,Verification: Report No. 6, March 1998.
? APRP, MVE Unit, Verification Report Update: Tranche II, August 23, 1998.
A3-2
 Agricultural Policy Reform Project
 Midterm Assessment: March 2000
? APRP, MVE Unit, Dr. Gary Ender, Dr. Adel Mostafa, Dr. John Holtzman, Dr. Morsy Ali
Fawzi, and Mr. Sherif Fayyad,Verification Report Update: Tranche III, September 14,
1999.
? APRP, MVE Unit, Policy Benchmarks for Accomplishment by June 30, 1997,
Verification Report: Tranche I, July 1997.
? APRP, MVE Unit, Policy Benchmarks for Accomplishment by June 30, 1997,
Verification Report: Tranche I, July 1997.
? APRP, MVE Unit, Policy Benchmarks for Accomplishment by June 30,
1999,Verification Report: Tranche III, July 1999.
? APRP, MVE Unit, Policy Benchmarks for Accomplishment by June 30,
1998,Verification Report: Tranche II, July 1998.
? APRP, MVE Unit, Policy Benchmarks for Accomplishment by December 31,
1997,Verification Report: Tranche I, March 1998.
? APRP, MVE Unit, Performance Report, Quarter Ending September 30, 1999.
? APRP, MVE Unit, Douglas J. Krieger, Ali Assem F. Abdel Aziz and Sherif M.S.Fayyad ,
Growth and The Productivity of Inputs in Agriculture on Egypt’s Old Lands: 1990 –
1997, Special Study No. 2, July 1999.
? APRP, MVEUnit,JohnS. Holtzman and Adel Mostafa, Cotton Subsector Baseline Study,
Impact Assessment: Report No. 5, December 1998.
? APRP, MVE Unit, Work Plan for Year 3 (January - December, 1999), May 1999.
? APRP, MVE Unit, Tom Zalla, Abdel-Hamid and Youssef Saad, Fertilizer Production and
Marketing in Egypt: Baseline Study, Impact Assessment: Report No. 2, December 1998.
? APRP, MVE Unit, John S. Holtzman, Abdel-Rahim Ismail and Charles Stathacos, Rice
Subsector Baseline Study, Impact Assessment: Report No. 3, March 1999.
? APRP, MVE Unit, Morsy A. Fawzy, Larry Pope, Yehia M. EL-Din and Ghazal Amer,
Availability and Quality of Agricultural Data in Egypt, Impact Assessment: Report No. 4,
December 1998.
? APRP, MVE Unit, Emad EL Hawary and Gary Ender, Progress Indicators for APRP,
Monitoring: Report No. 1, October 1998.
? APRP, MVE Unit, Work Plan for Year 2 (January – December 1998), May 1998.
? APRP, MVE Unit, Wallace Tyner, B. Adair Morse, M. Ragaa EL Amir, Adel Mostafa
and Sherin Sherif, Wheat Subsector Baseline Study, Impact Assessment: Report No. 6,
May 1999.
? APRP, MVE Unit, John W. Mellor and Sarah Gavian , Determinants of Employment
Growth in Egypt: The Dominant Role of Agriculture and The Rural Small, Scale Sector,
Impact Assessment: Report No. 7, December 1999.
? APRP, MVE Unit, Gary Ender, Adel Mostafa, John Holtzman, Ezz ELDin Abdel Kader ,
Azza Emara, Nabil EL Santricy, M. Abdel Sadek EL Santricy and Sherif Fayyad, A
Baseline of APRP Progress Indicators, 1990 – 1997, Monitoring: Report No. 2,
December 1999.
? APRP, MVE Unit, Ronald Krenz, William Breginc, Galal EL Rifai, Adel Mostafa, Nabil
EL Sentrecy and Mohamed Messelhi, The Quality and Grading of Egyptian Cotton, MVE
Special Study No. 1, GSPP Study No. 61, February 1999.
? APRP, MVE Unit, Publications, January 24, 2000.
? APRP, MVE Unit, Work Plan For Year 1.
? APRP, PMU, Memorandum of Understanding between:
A3-3
 Agricultural Policy Reform Project
 Midterm Assessment: March 2000
1) The Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation & The United States Agency for
International Development For Agricultural Policy Reform Program dated 24 Sept.
1995.
2) The Arab Republic of Egypt & The United States Agency for International
Development: Tranche II, dated 24 Sep. 1999.
3) The Arab Republic of Egypt & The United States Agency for International
Development: Tranche IV, dated 20 Sep. 1999.
4) The Arab Republic of Egypt & The United States Agency for International
Development: Tranche III, dated 27 Sep. 1999.
? APRP, RDI, Policy Brief, Sugarcane in Egypt, Strategy for Water Management, Issue #
6.
? APRP, RDI, Policy Brief, Agricultural Research and Extension, Strategy for Expanding
the Role of Egypt’s Private Sector, Issue # 7, July 1998.
? APRP, RDI, Policy Brief, Liberalization of Pest Management Service: Overall Reform
Strategy, Issue # 9, November 1998.
? APRP, RDI, Policy Brief, Agriculture-Vision for 2003, Issue No. 12, February 1999.
? APRP, RDI, Policy Brief, Improving the Production and Marketing of Hybrid Maize
Seed, Issue # 14, June 1999.
? APRP, RDI, Dr. John A.E.Cockroft, Mr. Brian Goshawk, Ms. Fatma Khattab and Dr.
Kenneth Swanberg, Market Study for The Yarn and Textile Markets In The Far East,
Report No. 15, August 1997.
? APRP, RDI, RDI Reports, Dr. Mohamed Sharaf and Dr. Jane Gleason, Land Tenure
Study, Phase II, Report No. 66, March 1999.
? APRP, RDI, RDI Reports, Dr. Wallace E.Tyner, Trade Agreements And Issues Important
For Egypt, Report No.90, December 1999.
? APRP, RDI, Newsletter, Volume 1, No.4, December 1998.
? APRP, RDI, Newsletter, Volume 2, No.3, September 1999.
? APRP,RDI, Newsletter, Volume2, No.4, December 1999.
? APRP,RDI Unit, Dr. Ahmed Barrania, Mr. Robin Rackowe, Dr. Jane Gleason, Dr. Sayed
Hussein and Dr. Medhat M.Abdelaal, Identifying Policy Barriers For Fisheries
Development, August 1999.
? APRP, RDI, Dr. Kenneth G. Swanleng, Estimating the Productivity of Mahogany
(Khayalan theteca) in association with undergrowth crops grown with waste water in
Egypt, December 1999.
? Green COM Egypt III, Inception Report Implementation Plan & Work Plan , December
1997.
? Green COM, WCU, Louise F. Kemprecos, Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of
District Irrigation Engineers in Egypt: Baseline Survey, Final Report, January 1998.
? Green COM Egypt III , Semi-Annual Report: January– May 1998.
? Green COM Egypt III, Semi-Annual Report: June – November 1998.
A3-4
 Agricultural Policy Reform Project
 Midterm Assessment: March 2000
? Green COM Egypt III, WPRP, El- Zanaty & Associates, Knowledge, Attitudes and
Practices of Egyptian Farmers Towards Water Resources, A National Survey, October
1998.
? Egypt Green COM III, Dr. John L. Woods, Impact of the Project: the Results, October
1999.
? Green COM, WCU, Louise F. Kemprecos, Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of
District Irrigation Engineers in Egypt: Impact Survey, Final Report, October 1999.
? Green COM, WCU, Louise F. Kemprecos, Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of
District Irrigation Engineers in Egypt: Impact Survey, Final Report, October 1999.
? APRP, APRP Vision Workshop, Proceedings, Ramses Hilton Hotel, Cairo, December
14-15 1998.
? APRP, Tranche IV Workshop, March 21 – 23, 1999.
? APRP, Policy Assistance Branch, FAO Regional Office, Cairo, FAO Input to
Agricultural Development Strategy 1997 to 2017, Comparative Advantage and
Competitiveness of Crops, Crop Rotations and Livestock Products in Egypt (Policy
Analysis Matrix Approach), January 1999.
? APRP, RDI, Success Story, Policy Dialogue Leads To Export Test, March 23, 1997.
? HEIA, Heia Newsletter for The Egyptian Horticultural Export Industry, issue No. 7, July
– September 1999.
? ESAS, Egyptian Seed Association, Issue No. I, January 2000.
? IIE, USAID DT2 Project, Training Plan Agreement For Ministry of Trade and Supply (
MOTS ), FY1998 – FY2000.
? IIE, USAID DT2 Project, Training Plan Agreement For Ministry of Public Enterprise (
MPE ), FY 1998 – FY2000.
? IIE, USAID DT2 Project, Training Plan Agreement For Ministry of Agriculture and Land
Reclamation ( MALR ), FY 1998 – FY 2000.
? IIE, DT 2 Project, James Riordan, George Kondos Tawfiq, Hossein Naficy and Abdel
Aziz Irahim abdel Aziz, Final Report:Training Needs Assessment for the Agricultural
Policy Reform Program 1997 – 2000, September 1997.
? USAID, Egypt, APCP, Lehman Fletcher and Karl Jensen, Datex Inc., A Final
Assessment, Contracts for Analysis, Performance and Strategy, Task Order # 12.
? USAID, Egypt, AGR/ACE, Rollo Ehrich, Memorandum, Springborg Political Analysis
for APRP PAAD, December 14, 1994.
? USIAD, Egypt, APRP, Technical Assistance For Agricultural Policy Reform Project
Paper 263-0219, March 16,1995.
? USAID, Egypt, PAAD, Technical Assistance for Agricultural Policy Reform, March 23,
1995.
? USAID, Egypt, OD/PDS/PS & PDS/AD, Stafford Baker and Thomas Rishoi, Action
Memorandum for the Mission Director, Approval of the Technical Assistance for
Agricultural Policy Reform Project Paper Amendment, September 16, 1996.
A3-5
 Agricultural Policy Reform Project
 Midterm Assessment: March 2000
? USAID, Egypt, ATUT Report, Strategic Action Plan I, Egyptian Cutflowers Export
Industry, 8-9June 1999, Publication No. 83, June 1999.
? USAID, Egypt, AP, Thomas Olson, Memorandum, APRP Concept Paper, February 11,
1999.
? USAID, Egypt, AP, Thomas Olson, Memorandum, Approval Requested for APRP
Extension, February 18, 1999.
? USAID, Egypt, Thomas olson, Minutes of the 2/25/99 Front Office Group Meeting,
October 10, 1999.
? USAID, Egypt, Cairo Book Fair Titles, New Titles at DIC from January to February
2000, 15 February 2000.
? MPWWR, WPAU, Annual Work Plan, October 1, 1997 to September 30, 1998.
? MPWWR, WPAU, Annual Work Plan, October 1, 1998 to September 30, 1999.
? MPWWR, WPAU, Annual Work Plan, October 1, 1999 to September 30, 2000.
? MPWWR, MFS Unit, Monthly Bulletin of The Nile Forecast Center, Cairo, October
1999.
? MPWWR, MSM Unit, Irrigation Management Systems.
? APRP, EPIQ, APRP Water Policy Reform Activity, Annual Work Plan, Year 2 (January￾December 1998), Report No.4 (Draft), April 1998.
? APRP, EPIQ, APRP Water Policy Reform Activity, Quarterly Report (January-March
1998), Report No. 5, April 1998.
? APRP, EPIQ, APRP Water Policy Reform Activity, Quarterly Report (April-June 1998),
Report No. 11, August 1998.
? APRP, EPIQ, APRP Water Policy Activity, Quarterly Report (July-September 1998),
Report No. 13, December 1998.
? APRP, EPIQ, APRP Water Policy Activity, Quarterly Report (October-December 1998),
Report No. 14, January 1999.
? APRP, EPIQ, APRP Water Policy Activity, Quarterly Report (January-March 1999),
Report No. 15, May 1999.
? APRP, EPIQ, APRP Water Policy Activity, Quarterly Report (April-June 1999), Report
No. 23, August 1999.
? APRP, EPIQ, APRP Water Policy Activity, Quarterly Report (July-September 1999),
Report No. 25, November 1999.
? APRP, EPIQ, APRP Water Policy Reform Activity: Tranche IV Benchmark Work Plan,
Report No. 24, November 1999.
? APRP, EPIQ, Water Policy Reform Assistance, RDI, Dr. Bayoumi B. Attia, Eng. Ahmed
S.Mohamed, Eng. Mohamed E.Mohamed, Eng. Nader EL Masry, Prof. Yehia M. El Din,
Prof. Abdel Salam Gamaa and Prof. Dr. Ahmed Nawar, A Study on Developing A
Revised, Integrated Land and Water Plan, Tranche I. Benchmark III.A, Report No. 24,
December 1997.
? APRP, EPIQ, Water Policy Reform Assistance, MVE Unit, Policy Benchmarks for
Accomplishment by June 30, 1999, Verification Report: Tranche III, July 1999.
A3-6
 Agricultural Policy Reform Project
 Midterm Assessment: March 2000
? APRP, EPIQ, Water Policy Reform Assitance, Law No. 12/1984 concerning the issue of
the Law on Irrigation and Drinage.
? APRP, EPIQ, Water Policy Reform Assistance, MVE Unit, Policy Benchmarks for
Accomplishment by June 30, 1997, Verification Report:Tranche I, July 1997.
? APRP, EPIQ, Water Policy Reform Assistance, MVE Unit, Verification Report
Update:Tranche II, August 23, 1998.
? APRP, EPIQ, Water Policy Reform Assistance, Irrigation Improvement Project (IIP),
Final Report, September 21, 1996.
? APRP, EPIQ, Water Policy Reform Assistance, RDI, Dr. John Keith, Dr. Sayed Hussein
and Dr. EL Sayed Mahdy, Egypt’s Sugarcane Policy and Strategy for Water
Management, Report No. 33, June 1998.
? APRP, EPIQ, Water Policy Reform Assistance, APRP Tranche II Water Policy
Benchmarks and Background Documentation, Report No. 1, August 1997.
? APRP, EPIQ, Water Policy Reform Assistance, Assessment of Egypt’s Rice Policy and
Strategies for Water Management, Report No. 6, June 1998.
? APRP, EPIQ, Water Policy Reform Assistance, National Policy For Drainage Water
Reuse, Report No. 8, June 1998.
? APRP, EPIQ, Water Policy Reform Assistance, Tranche III Benchmark Work Plan,
Report No. 12, November 1998.
? APRP, EPIQ, Water Policy Reform Assistance, Establishment Of Branch Canal Water
user Associations in The Egyptian Irrigation System, Report No. 17, Main Document,
June1999.
? APRP, EPIQ, Water Policy Reform Assistance, Institutionalization of The MPWWR
Irrigation Advisory Service , Report No. 18, June1999.
? APRP, EPIQ, Water Policy Reform Assistance, Water Savings Through Utilization Of
Short Duration Rice Varieties: National Policy Package,1999-2000, Report No. 19,
June1999.
? APRP, EPIQ, Water Policy Reform Assistance, Intermediate Drainage Reuse In Bahr
Bagar Drain Basin, Tranche III Water Benchmark C7, Report No. 20, Main Document,
June1999.
? APRP, EPIQ, Water Policy Reform Assistance, Revision Of Law 48 of 1982 For The
Protection Of The Nile River And Its Waterways From Pollution, Tranche III Water
Benchmark C8 Report, Report No. 21, Main Document, June1999.
? APRP, EPIQ, Water Policy Reform Assistance, Short Duration Rice Variety Pilot
Program Results, Report No. 22, July 1999.
? APRP, EPIQ, Water Policy Reform Assistance, Benchmark Background document,
Annex A, Tranche III, September 1998.
? APRP, EPIQ, Water Policy Reform Assistance, National Water Research Center,
National Level Strategies and Policies For Utilizing Egypt’s Water Resources, December
1996.
? APRP, EPIQ, Water Policy Reform Assistance, National Water Resources Plan For
Egypt, Water Quality and Pollution Control, January 2000.
? APRP, EPIQ, Water Policy Reform Assistance, RDI Newsletter, Volume No 2, 3
September 1999.
? APRP, EPIQ, Water Policy Reform Assistance, Scope Of Work Water Resources Policy
Reform, February 23, ?2000.
A3-7
 Agricultural Policy Reform Project
 Midterm Assessment: March 2000
? APRP, EPIQ, Water Policy Reform Assistance, WUA’s + Management Transfer,
Tranche IV.
? APRP, EPIQ, Water Policy Reform Assistance, Egyptian Journal of Agricultural
Economics, Volume 7, No. 1, March 1997.
? APRP, EPIQ, Water Policy Reform Assistance, Egyptian Journal of Agricultural
Economics, Volume 8, No. 2, September 1998.
? APRP, EPIQ, Water Policy Reform Assistance, Egyptian Journal of Agricultural
Economics, Volume 9, No. 1, March 1999.